Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

The two most exciting things for the fans are winning playoffs and the draft


Teams need to at least excel in one

Thanks for defining fandom for me. What foods should I like?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And one point for an overtime or shootout loss. As I already pointed out. Which the NHL also does.

All games in those leagues are worth three points. There are no extra points.

Games in the NHL, AHL, and CHL are sometimes worth two points and sometimes three. There are extra points.

Sounds like they’re actually not giving out an extra point. The extra point is the 3rd point for a regulation win. They’re giving out one less point. It’s really a matter of framing, but if you compare the NHL’s point system to every other point system in major league hockey, the “loser point” is not the additional point. Everyone gives out that point.

You are not understanding the obvious.

I repeat: In the NHL, AHL, and CHL, in some games two points are awarded, and in other games three. The third point is extra.

In leagues where the winner gets three points, that is not an extra point. It is one of the three points that were up for grabs from the opening faceoff.

Wrong. They do have a “loser point,” which is the point given out to teams that “lose” in overtime or the shootout.

That's not why people complain about the NHL system. They complain because the OT loser is rewarded with a point, even though the winner already receives both of the points that are supposed to be awarded for the game.

Loser = team that loses, point = a point in the standings, therefore loser point = a point given to the team that loses, which they do give out.

Apparently you only know words and not their referents. Has your account been hacked by GPT?

What they do is give out an extra point for regulation wins. That’s it. That’s the extra point That’s the additional point.

NO. The extra point is the point that is given for some games but not for others.

[QUOTE]The NHL doesn’t, because they believe tie breakers are enough motivation to have teams close the game in regulation vs. overtime.[/UQOTE]

It obviously isn't.

I don’t think you understand your objection, because I do

You do not, or I would not have to keep explaining it in shorter and shorter words.

THE EXTRA POINT IS THE POINT THAT IS AWARDED IN SOME GAMES BUT NOT IN OTHERS.

If every game is worth three points, there is no extra point.

If every game is worth two points, there is no extra point.

If some games are worth two points and some are worth three, then there is an extra point in the latter case.

and I’m showing you facts that say your objection (as you’ve defined it) doesn’t make sense,

My objection is that every game should be worth the same number of points, and in the NHL they sometimes give out additional points. That provides an incentive for teams NOT to finish in regulation. When the game is tied in the third period, basic game theory says you coast until overtime to guarantee yourself a point. You don't lose anything, because the maximum your team can get is still two points, but you can guarantee yourself at least one point – at the expense of making the game boring for the fans and distorting the standings.

It's not a zero-sum game, and it should be. In every league that gives three points for a regulation win, it IS a zero-sum game.

and I can tell you don’t understand it because you’re already dipping into the insults over… right… point systems in the NHL and international hockey. Super serious stuff.

If I'm dipping into the insults, it's because you have repeatedly shown

Your objection is that some games award two points and some award three, which is true but a non-issue.

IT IS THE ENTIRE ISSUE. You don't care, but I do. That's allowed.

You’ve decided, arbitrarily, that the “loser point” is the additional point.

There is nothing arbitrary about that. Formerly, the NHL, AHL, and CHL all awarded two points for a win in any fashion and zero points for a loss in any fashion. They then ADDED a point which is given to the OT loser. This is what is called ADDITIONAL, because it was ADDED to the system they already had.

Are you capable of understanding that?

That could make sense, if your issue wasn’t also that “other international leagues don’t give this out,” when they do, in fact, award that point.

NO, THEY DO NOT. They give out three points in EVERY game. There is nothing extra!!!!!

So,
- “xxx doesn’t give out loser points” We can scrap that. Provably wrong.

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why.

- “the loser point is the extra point” Also provably wrong. Why? If you compare it to other systems, everyone gives it out.

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why – including just above.

If you compare it internally, two points are awarded at the end of regulation in every single NHL game, sometimes that’s two to the winner, sometimes it’s one to each team if they’re tied, so the “additional” point awarded at the end of OT or SO is the point for a win. If you’re against the “additional” point being awarded, you’re arguing in favour of bringing back ties OR arguing for the “additional” point being given out in regulation.

I am not arguing for any particular position, except that every game should be worth the same number of points in the standings.

Do you have an actual argument for why it should change? Or just, “it’s stupid and I don’t like it,” proving that you’ll run out of arguments before we run out of facts?

Now you're the one resorting to insults. Noted.

Scotty Bowman was against the introduction of the point for an OT loss because it provides a perverse incentive to drag out games to extra time. The reasoning I gave above in this post is identical with his. If you think Scotty Bowman hasn't got an argument other than ‘it's stupid’, take it up with him.

As it happens, the percentage of games decided in regulation dropped sharply when the point for an OT loss was introduced.

I think it should change because I think it’s worthwhile to align with international hockey (and consistency here helps understanding of the game globally), and the slight increase to parity it provides could actually stop teams from properly evaluating their performance and making the right decisions for the franchise. Not as compelling as “it’s stupid” and “ugh loser points!” but y’know, it’s something!

Well, I've given you my reasons multiple times, but you are apparently unable to read them. I don't know what's the matter with you.

We should probably prepare our delicate sensibilities for the fact that the 3-2-1-0 system does, in fact, award a point to “losers” though

It does not award an EXTRA point to losers, which is my entire objection and most people's!!!!!

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAnOutrage

I like this. Do away with the baseline 1 and just one for a win, zero for any kind of loss. 56 points will be a blockbuster season. Some teams witll finish with 30 or less

Yeah, the thinly veiled irony was that it would lead to counting up who won the most games. You know, like every other league does.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, I've given you my reasons multiple times, but you are apparently unable to read them. I don't know what's the matter with you.

There's no intellectual curiosity there, just a wish to twist a knife in people for any reason.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

There's no intellectual curiosity there, just a wish to twist a knife in people for any reason.

“Thanks for the laugh”

Let me know when your intellectual curiosity shows up. In the meantime, people are having a conversation.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Thanks for the laugh”

You're welcome. Here it is again.

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 pity point can be updated to 1.9999 and they'd still be under the 2 point system! But it has to happen in the European leagues, CHL, and AHL for it to make sense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

All games in those leagues are worth three points. There are no extra points.

Games in the NHL, AHL, and CHL are sometimes worth two points and sometimes three. There are extra points.

In those leagues, sometimes a win is worth 3 points, sometimes it’s worth 2 points. There is an extra point.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You are not understanding the obvious.

I repeat: In the NHL, AHL, and CHL, in some games two points are awarded, and in other games three. The third point is extra.

In leagues where the winner gets three points, that is not an extra point. It is one of the three points that were up for grabs from the opening faceoff.

Sure there is. As I said above.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not why people complain about the NHL system. They complain because the OT loser is rewarded with a point, even though the winner already receives both of the points that are supposed to be awarded for the game.

As I’ve already explained, that point is rewarded before OT ends. The winner doesn’t receive the points that are “supposed” to be awarded, they receive 2 points. In the event of a tie at the end of regulation, both teams are awarded a point, and the winner receives an extra point.

You even point this out below where you say there’s no incentive to close out in regulation, because if you’re tied, you get a point. How can the winner receive both points and the loser’s be extra if both teams get the point before the game is over?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Apparently you only know words and not their referents. Has your account been hacked by GPT?

So the “loser point” isn’t the point awarded to the loser? It’s something else? What is it?

Did Microsoft’s Clippy hack your account?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

NO. The extra point is the point that is given for some games but not for others.

You do not, or I would not have to keep explaining it in shorter and shorter words.

THE EXTRA POINT IS THE POINT THAT IS AWARDED IN SOME GAMES BUT NOT IN OTHERS.

If every game is worth three points, there is no extra point.

If every game is worth two points, there is no extra point.

If some games are worth two points and some are worth three, then there is an extra point in the latter case.

Cool, which point is the extra point, out of the three, and why?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

My objection is that every game should be worth the same number of points, and in the NHL they sometimes give out additional points. That provides an incentive for teams NOT to finish in regulation. When the game is tied in the third period, basic game theory says you coast until overtime to guarantee yourself a point. You don't lose anything, because the maximum your team can get is still two points, but you can guarantee yourself at least one point – at the expense of making the game boring for the fans and distorting the standings.

It's not a zero-sum game, and it should be. In every league that gives three points for a regulation win, it IS a zero-sum game.

Which point is the additional one?

You can lose a lot by going to overtime:
- giving a point to a division rival
- losing a point in the tie breaker
- risking a higher chance of a loss if your team isn’t strong on 4v4

The standings aren’t really that distorted. They’re almost identical to 3-2-1-0, just a higher perception of parity which really only distorts individual team evaluation.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If I'm dipping into the insults, it's because you have repeatedly shown

shown… oops.

“If I’m insulting you it’s your fault.”

Do you always blame others for your actions?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

There is nothing arbitrary about that. Formerly, the NHL, AHL, and CHL all awarded two points for a win in any fashion and zero points for a loss in any fashion. They then ADDED a point which is given to the OT loser. This is what is called ADDITIONAL, because it was ADDED to the system they already had.

Sure, but then they TOOK AWAY the point for being tied after regulation. Now THEY HAVE a point for being tied after regulation. No extra.

Also, the AHL actually introduced it first.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

NO, THEY DO NOT. They give out three points in EVERY game. There is nothing extra!!!!!

They award the “loser point.” Please pay attention to what you’re responding to.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why.

Nope

Originally Posted by Jay Random

WRONG, and I have repeatedly told you why – including just above.

Nope. Gosh this takes forever, just put your response in one block next time.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I am not arguing for any particular position, except that every game should be worth the same number of points in the standings.

Then why are you talking about the loser point?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now you're the one resorting to insults. Noted.

Saying you’ll run out of arguments is an insult? My goodness. “Noted.” lol

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Scotty Bowman was against the introduction of the point for an OT loss because it provides a perverse incentive to drag out games to extra time. The reasoning I gave above in this post is identical with his. If you think Scotty Bowman hasn't got an argument other than ‘it's stupid’, take it up with him.

As it happens, the percentage of games decided in regulation dropped sharply when the point for an OT loss was introduced.

Sure, let me just call him.

And RW actually went up the year OTL was introduced.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Well, I've given you my reasons multiple times, but you are apparently unable to read them. I don't know what's the matter with you.

I know, I can read them, I just don’t think they’re particularly well thought-out. That’s what we’re discussing.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It does not award an EXTRA point to losers, which is my entire objection and most people's!!!!!

Neither does the NHL. There’s an extra point available in overtime, and, arguably, it goes to the winner.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You're welcome. Here it is again.



The pity point can be updated to 1.9999 and they'd still be under the 2 point system! But it has to happen in the European leagues, CHL, and AHL for it to make sense.

Every league has “pity point.” The sassy sarcastic bit you’re going for is going to play better if you can back it up with something intellectual.

Give it another go.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

In those leagues, sometimes a win is worth 3 points, sometimes it’s worth 2 points. There is an extra point.

No. In those leagues, a regulation win is worth 3 points, a regulation loss zero. An OT win is worth 2, an OT loss 1. There is no extra point. Every game is worth 3 points.

You even point this out below where you say there’s no incentive to close out in regulation, because if you’re tied, you get a point. How can the winner receive both points and the loser’s be extra if both teams get the point before the game is over?

The loser point is extra because the winner always gets two points, but there is no third point awarded unless the game goes to OT.

So the “loser point” isn’t the point awarded to the loser? It’s something else? What is it?

It is the EXTRA POINT that is not awarded if the game is decided in regulation.

Did Microsoft’s Clippy hack your account?

Another insult devoid of content. Noted.

Cool, which point is the extra point, out of the three, and why?

Hell's bells, I just explained that to you in words of one syllable. Read it again.

Which point is the additional one?

Again the same foolish question.

You can lose a lot by going to overtime:
- giving a point to a division rival

Not if you're playing an out-of-division game.

- losing a point in the tie breaker

Getting one point puts you ahead of the team that you would be breaking a hypothetical tie with.

- risking a higher chance of a loss if your team isn’t strong on 4v4

You're clutching at straws here.

The standings aren’t really that distorted. They’re almost identical to 3-2-1-0, just a higher perception of parity which really only distorts individual team evaluation.

Tell that to the '21-22 Flames, who won more games than the Habs but missed the playoffs because they got fewer points for losses.



shown… oops.

“If I’m insulting you it’s your fault.”

Do you always blame others for your actions?

I blame the people who are to blame. If I am saying things about you that you feel are insulting, it's because I am pointing out things that you have actually said and done. It's not my fault it's the truth.

Sure, but then they TOOK AWAY the point for being tied after regulation. Now THEY HAVE a point for being tied after regulation. No extra.

Are you even listening to yourself? They took away a point, but they give a point? Is there some way to tell the one point from the other? No.

Also, the AHL actually introduced it first.

Because they were testing it for the NHL.

They award the “loser point.” Please pay attention to what you’re responding to.

They award three points in every game. There is no special additional point for losing in OT, because the winner in OT does not get the full three points.

Nope

Oh, gee, that's convincing. I say something, and you just deny that I said it.

Nope. Gosh this takes forever, just put your response in one block next time.

You first.

Then why are you talking about the loser point?

Because that is how people refer to the third point that is only awarded in the NHL when teams lose in OT. I didn't make up the terminology.

Do you seriously expect the English language to follow the strict rules of logic? Get over yourself.

Saying you’ll run out of arguments is an insult? My goodness.

Yes, it is.

“Noted.” lol

I noted that you

Sure, let me just call him.

Or you could just do a two-minute Google for what he said in the press at the time.

And RW actually went up the year OTL was introduced.

Not according to the figures I read at the time.

I know, I can read them, I just don’t think they’re particularly well thought-out. That’s what we’re discussing.

You aren't thinking anything out yourself – just squirting out ink to try to obfuscate the issue.

Neither does the NHL. There’s an extra point available in overtime, and, arguably, it goes to the winner.

We've been over this and over this.

The winner of a game gets two points, no matter what. The loser only gets a point IF the loss occurs in overtime or the shootout. To any sensible person, THAT point is the extra. It was introduced AFTER the two-point system was adopted.

You are infinitely tiresome, you know that?

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

We've been over this and over this.

The winner of a game gets two points, no matter what. The loser only gets a point IF the loss occurs in overtime or the shootout. To any sensible person, THAT point is the extra. It was introduced AFTER the two-point system was adopted.

You are infinitely tiresome, you know that?

It's so funny to me. This person is either delusional, thoroughly enjoys the use of irrational argument, or perhaps both.

What you said is so clearly the plain truth to anyone who reads it.

I'm still waiting for an analytical explanation of why the loser pity point award is 1 instead of any other number 0 <= x < 2.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No. In those leagues, a regulation win is worth 3 points, a regulation loss zero. An OT win is worth 2, an OT loss 1. There is no extra point. Every game is worth 3 points.

The loser point is extra because the winner always gets two points, but there is no third point awarded unless the game goes to OT.

It is the EXTRA POINT that is not awarded if the game is decided in regulation.

If a win is worth 3 points sometimes and 2 points other times, that consisted an extra point for no real reason. Isn’t a win a win?

You just argued that, in the NHL, the winner gets 2 points no matter what so one of those couldn’t possibly be the extra point, yet in 3-2-1-0, the winner in overtime clearly deserves less points than the winner in regulation. Based on that, it’s reasonable to believe the 2nd point the winner gets in overtime is the extra point.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Another insult devoid of content. Noted.

Sorry, I didn’t realise it was OK for you to call me AI that didn’t understand what words stood for but I’m not allowed to make a clippy joke. Very interesting scheme: insult someone, have them lob a softer one back, play victim. NoTeDded.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Hell's bells, I just explained that to you in words of one syllable. Read it again.

So the extra point is the point not normally awarded. Meaning in 3-2-1-0, the extra point is the 3rd point in a regulation win.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Again the same foolish question.
Not if you're playing an out-of-division game.
Getting one point puts you ahead of the team that you would be breaking a hypothetical tie with.
You're clutching at straws here.

Sorry that you can’t rely on vague “game theory” while I present real situations that disprove your belief.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Tell that to the '21-22 Flames, who won more games than the Habs but missed the playoffs because they got fewer points for losses.

The Flames were in the playoffs in 21-22, the Habs weren’t. Another factless reach.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I blame the people who are to blame. If I am saying things about you that you feel are insulting, it's because I am pointing out things that you have actually said and done. It's not my fault it's the truth

You pretend to be better and more mature than this, but you can’t even stop yourself from undeserved insults when talking about point systems. Too bad. Better stop playing victim and crying foul if you want to start trading them.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because they were testing it for the NHL.

I thought the AHL was one of the teams “copying the NHL’s stupid idea”

Originally Posted by Jay Random

They award three points in every game. There is no special additional point for losing in OT, because the winner in OT does not get the full three points.

There is a “loser point”

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because that is how people refer to the third point that is only awarded in the NHL when teams lose in OT. I didn't make up the terminology.

Do you seriously expect the English language to follow the strict rules of logic? Get over yourself.

So, it’s how people refer to the point awarded to the team that loses in overtime, not just “an extra point.”

Guess I understand the English language a bit better than you.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yes, it is.

Sorry, it’s not. It’s just pointing out the truth. It’s not my fault if you are insulted by the truth.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Not according to the figures I read at the time.

The ones you made up?

30 RW wins on average the year before
32 RW wins on average the year it was introduced

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You aren't thinking anything out yourself – just squirting out ink to try to obfuscate the issue.

Sure I have, would you like me to write it in “smaller words so you can understand”?

This is the internet. There’s no ink.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The winner of a game gets two points, no matter what. The loser only gets a point IF the loss occurs in overtime or the shootout. To any sensible person, THAT point is the extra. It was introduced AFTER the two-point system was adopted.

The 3-2-1-0 system was adopted AFTER the two point system was adopted, therefore. This introduced an ADDITIONAL point for regulation wins. The winner of the game sometimes gets 2 points, and sometimes gets three. To any sensible person, THAT point is the extra.

See how this works?

So far you:
- were wrong about which leagues have a point for overtime losses
- were wrong about which league introduced it first
- were wrong about the AHL copying the NHL because they wanted to be “just like them”
- were wrong about what the loser point actually is
- were wrong about the 21-22 season
- were wrong about RW pre and post introduction of the OTL point

So, I’m just wondering, do you have any actual facts to support your argument or are you just going to keep making stuff up and pretending you’re not the one who is tiresome?

But no, please, make up more stuff. Love to see what else you come up with.

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's so funny to me. This person is either delusional, thoroughly enjoys the use of irrational argument, or perhaps both.

What you said is so clearly the plain truth to anyone who reads it.

I'm still waiting for an analytical explanation of why the loser pity point award is 1 instead of any other number 0 <= x < 2.

Who even are you? Nobody cares.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If a win is worth 3 points sometimes and 2 points other times, that consisted an extra point for no real reason. Isn’t a win a win?

No. That is not an extra point, because exactly three points are awarded for every game played.

You just argued that, in the NHL, the winner gets 2 points no matter what so one of those couldn’t possibly be the extra point, yet in 3-2-1-0, the winner in overtime clearly deserves less points than the winner in regulation. Based on that, it’s reasonable to believe the 2nd point the winner gets in overtime is the extra point.

I told you: The NHL has always given two points to the winner of a game. Formerly, those were the only points awarded.

So the extra point is the point not normally awarded. Meaning in 3-2-1-0, the extra point is the 3rd point in a regulation win.

No. The third point in a three-point system is not extra. The third point in a two-point system is extra.

Sorry that you can’t rely on vague “game theory” while I present real situations that disprove your belief.

Sorry that you can't understand how game theory actually applies to real, live games.

The Flames were in the playoffs in 21-22, the Habs weren’t. Another factless reach.

I meant to say '20-21, and I thought I said '20-21. Take a look at the standings for the ‘North Division’ in the post-Covid year. Or be an ass if you prefer; and I can see that is what you prefer.

You pretend to be better and more mature than this, but you can’t even stop yourself from undeserved insults when talking about point systems. Too bad. Better stop playing victim and crying foul if you want to start trading them.

I'm not crying foul. I'm pointing out that you use insults instead of arguments. If I use insults, they are additional to arguments.

I thought the AHL was one of the teams “copying the NHL’s stupid idea”

If the NHL hadn't had the stupid idea, they would never have instructed the AHL to test it for them.

So, it’s how people refer to the point awarded to the team that loses in overtime, not just “an extra point.”

It is, in fact, the only time that an extra point is awarded.

Guess I understand the English language a bit better than you.

You clearly do not. If you want to insult me, I suggest you take the trouble of finding out what my actual faults are instead of trying to make things up.

The 3-2-1-0 system was adopted AFTER the two point system was adopted, therefore. This introduced an ADDITIONAL point for regulation wins. The winner of the game sometimes gets 2 points, and sometimes gets three. To any sensible person, THAT point is the extra.

See how this works?

That is not how it works. The Euro leagues and NCAA scrapped the entire previous system and designed a zero-sum three-point system from scratch. The NHL retained the existing two-point system but added a third point that is given out in some games but not in others.

So far you:
- were wrong about which leagues have a point for overtime losses

I was not.

- were wrong about which league introduced it first

Since the AHL does nothing except on the NHL's orders, I was not.

- were wrong about the AHL copying the NHL because they wanted to be “just like them”

The CHL copied the NHL because they were imitating it. I notice you don't dispute that.

- were wrong about what the loser point actually is

No, I was not. The loser point is the thi

- were wrong about the 21-22 season

I typed an erroneous number and did not catch it before posting. I suppose you have never in your life committed a typo?

- were wrong about RW pre and post introduction of the OTL point

I'll take my own sources for that over your unsupported say-so, thank you very much.

[QUOOTE]So, I’m just wondering, do you have any actual facts to support your argument or are you just going to keep making stuff up and pretending you’re not the one who is tiresome?[/QUOTE]

I haven't made a damned thing up. You are simply twisting semantics to justify an obviously wrong point of view. When I point out the facts of the matter, you simply deny them and repeat your own unsupported claims.

Who even are you? Nobody cares.

Now you're insulting a third party. Bravo. I'm sure you are proud of yourself and think you have just won the argument.

I'm done with you, like so many other CPers before me. Get lost.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

No. That is not an extra point, because exactly three points are awarded for every game played.

I told you: The NHL has always given two points to the winner of a game. Formerly, those were the only points awarded.

No. The third point in a three-point system is not extra. The third point in a two-point system is extra.

Sorry that you can't understand how game theory actually applies to real, live games.

Semantics. If a win is worth more in some situations than others, it’s “extra” or “additional.” The Swiss League event refers to the point awarded to the overtime winner in as “an additional point.” In fact, it, like the NHL, notes that of the points awarded, each time gets one point at the end of regulation, making it clear that the point for the overtime winner is the “additional” point.

How can there be no additional point if leagues refer to them as additional points?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I meant to say '20-21, and I thought I said '20-21. Take a look at the standings for the ‘North Division’ in the post-Covid year. Or be an ass if you prefer; and I can see that is what you prefer.

More insults because I can’t read your mind. Quite the bully.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm not crying foul. I'm pointing out that you use insults instead of arguments. If I use insults, they are additional to arguments.

Wow. What a hero. Everybody clap.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

If the NHL hadn't had the stupid idea, they would never have instructed the AHL to test it for them.

I thought they copied the NHL? They copied the NHL by doing it first because the NHL asked them to do it first? That’s not copying them.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You clearly do not. If you want to insult me, I suggest you take the trouble of finding out what my actual faults are instead of trying to make things up.

I have the feeling based on how you approach conversation that it would take very, very little trouble.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

lThat is not how it works. The Euro leagues and NCAA scrapped the entire previous system and designed a zero-sum three-point system from scratch. The NHL retained the existing two-point system but added a third point that is given out in some games but not in others.

That’s not what zero sum means. Another thing you don’t know.

Zero sum is when something is gained by one side and lost by another. In hockey, points are only awarded, not taken away. The sum is never zero.

You think different points are bad, the NCAA doesn’t even end all games the same way lol.

The NHL also abandoned the 2-1-0 system for a 2-1-1-0 system and then a 2-1-0 system. Nice try.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I was not.

So which leagues give out a point for an overtime loss, then?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I typed an erroneous number and did not catch it before posting. I suppose you have never in your life committed a typo?

How was I supposed to know it’s a typo? I’m supposed to fact check you and then take the extra step of figuring out which season you actually meant? lol

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'll take my own sources for that over your unsupported say-so, thank you very much.

Yeah. I used the NHL website. Never can trust them.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I haven't made a damned thing up. You are simply twisting semantics to justify an obviously wrong point of view. When I point out the facts of the matter, you simply deny them and repeat your own unsupported claims.

The guy who has a definition of “loser point” that isn’t the point given to the losing team is trying to talk about twisting semantics? lol. You’ve made plenty up, have zero sources, and have been proven wrong a half dozen times already.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now you're insulting a third party. Bravo. I'm sure you are proud of yourself and think you have just won the argument.

They insulted or mocked me three posts in a row without adding anything, so it’s pretty telling that you singled me out for a gentle clap back.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I'm done with you, like so many other CPers before me. Get lost.

Dear diary: nobody cares. You go first.

[transplant99]

nm

[Mathgod]

@OP

Interesting idea. An idea popped into my head that is similar to yours but doesn't involve teams "stealing" players as you described.

What if the draft was replaced with an auction. All players eligible to be drafted have their names put into a raffle drum, and the names are randomly pulled one at a time. When a player's name is announced, that player is auctioned to the highest bidder. If there are no takers on a player, a team will be randomly selected from another raffle drum and required to draft that player for 1 draft point.

Each team starts the auction with some amount of draft points based on where they finished in the standings. A formula for that might be:

100*ln(3p), rounded up to the nearest whole number

Where p is the position a team finished in. 1 being the SC champ, 33 being the last place team.

In a scenario where all teams are out of points and there are still players to be drafted, each team is given 100 points, and the draft carries on until all players have been drafted. No limits on how many players any one team can draft.

Edit: ahh shoot, only read opening post not the whole thread. But I still think randomly raffling player names would make the draft more exciting than drafting players in consensus order.


As for regular season OT format, give me 6 on 6 with no goalies. Whoever scores the most goals in the 5 minutes is the winner. If it's still tied, next goal wins.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

@OP

Interesting idea. An idea popped into my head that is similar to yours but doesn't involve teams "stealing" players as you described.

What if the draft was replaced with an auction. All players eligible to be drafted have their names put into a raffle drum, and the names are randomly pulled one at a time. When a player's name is announced, that player is auctioned to the highest bidder. If there are no takers on a player, a team will be randomly selected from another raffle drum and required to draft that player for 1 draft point.

Each team starts the auction with some amount of draft points based on where they finished in the standings. A formula for that might be:

100*ln(3p), rounded up to the nearest whole number

Where p is the position a team finished in. 1 being the SC champ, 33 being the last place team.

The problem with that idea is that most draft eligible players generate no interest. So the auction idea is cool, but the order in which prospects come up would have to be the result of some composite ranking.

I'd be in favor of teams being able to have rollover draft points so that if you choose not to spend them in the current year, they're available to you in the subsequent year in addition to what the formula would yield. Using the ln function would sort of neutralize tanking, though, since the difference between losing and winning the finals would be 69 points and the difference between being last or second last would be 3.

I still think it would lead to the consequence of a vastly more competitive undrafted player market as teams would want to use the rollover to stockpile draft points for premium prospects.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The problem with that idea is that most draft eligible players generate no interest. So the auction idea is cool, but the order in which prospects come up would have to be the result of some composite ranking.

I'd be in favor of teams being able to have rollover draft points so that if you choose not to spend them in the current year, they're available to you in the subsequent year in addition to what the formula would yield. Using the ln function would sort of neutralize tanking, though, since the difference between losing and winning the finals would be 69 points and the difference between being last or second last would be 3.

I still think it would lead to the consequence of a vastly more competitive undrafted player market as teams would want to use the rollover to stockpile draft points for premium prospects.

Here's a possible solution: each team submits a list of 200 players that they would be potentially interested in drafting. A team is only eligible to bid on players who they put on their list. In order to be included in the draft, a player must appear on at least one team's list.

If done this way, there would realistically be, what, something in the neighborhood of 250 to 300 players total in the raffle? Very manageable.

As for points rolling over from one year to the next, I don't know how I feel about that. If you don't allow point rollovers, it puts pressure on teams to spend or trade their points and not be sitting on points at the end of the draft. Would make for some interesting decisions by teams.

[Geeoff]

If the primary goal is to eliminate tanking, one thing you could do is only allow trades during the offseason


Or implement a "coffee is for closers" rule where only teams with a certain point percentage can make trades in season

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Here's a possible solution: each team submits a list of 200 players that they would be potentially interested in drafting. A team is only eligible to bid on players who they put on their list. In order to be included in the draft, a player must appear on at least one team's list.

If done this way, there would realistically be, what, something in the neighborhood of 250 to 300 players total in the raffle? Very manageable.

As for points rolling over from one year to the next, I don't know how I feel about that. If you don't allow point rollovers, it puts pressure on teams to spend or trade their points and not be sitting on points at the end of the draft. Would make for some interesting decisions by teams.

Just have an auction "order" - either random of reverse standings - where each team introduces a player to the auction block at their turn

[The Cobra]

The only true way to stop tanking is to not have a draft (or any advantage whatsoever) based on the lowest team benefiting.

But that will never happen, as you will then have the rich teams getting richer and the poorer teams getting worse. It's in Calgary's interest to allow tanking.

And I'm defining tanking as a scorched earth rebuild. It's what Calagry may end up doing.