Series Thread: North Division Semis: (1) Tor vs (4) Mon---Habs win series 4-3

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Loser point is fine.

A 3-2-1 systems with 3 points for a regulation win is what’s needed.

Why though...why do we need points for losing. They are big boys, get over it.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Why though...why do we need points for losing. They are big boys, get over it.

It’s a point for tying the other team over the regulation time in the game.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Why though...why do we need points for losing. They are big boys, get over it.

It's not a point for losing. It's a point for being tied through regulation. It makes sense to keep the 1 point for an OT/SO loss if regulation wins were worth 3 points. After all, if both teams are incentivized to win in regulation, the 1 point is essentially a reward for stopping the other team from winning in regulation.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It’s a point for tying the other team over the regulation time in the game.

I know what it is...don't think its necessary

Montreal clinched a playoff spot by losing lol

You can lose a world cup in a shootout but a regular season NHL game is just to much.

Don't like it? win the game

All games worth 2 points, you either win or you lose IMO

Giving points for tying regulation just makes teams sit back in the 3rd. Christ the Oilers and Habs basically had an agreement to go to OT

[Mathgod]

At any rate, aside from Price stealing game 1, this series has gone as expected. Leafs wrap it up in 5 in all likelihood.

[Philly06Cup]

Agree, the world cup should go on until someone scores.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Why though...why do we need points for losing. They are big boys, get over it.

Because it would be even worse and even more of a joke if a team got both points for winning 3v3 or a shootout.

Plus you’d get the most boring OT in that situation because nobody would want to really take any risks, and teams would end up having shootout specialists.

If games go to ongoing 5v5 or 4v4 OT, or if we bring back ties then sure but not with the current OT format.

Under the current rules and with what the NHL is trying to promote a 3-2-1 system by far makes the most sense.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Because it would be even worse and even more of a joke if a team got both points for winning 3v3 or a shootout.

Plus you’d get the most boring OT in that situation because nobody would want to really take any risks, and teams would end up having shootout specialists.

If games go to ongoing 5v5 or 4v4 OT, or if we bring back ties then sure but not with the current OT format.

Under the current rules and with what the NHL is trying to promote a 3-2-1 system by far makes the most sense.

Agree to disagree...teams aren't going to sit back when there is no loser point to fall back on.

Personally I would go 3 on 3 and then 2 on 2 until it ends. If you lose an OT game too bad for you...teams in every other sport survive. Christ in the NFL they flip a coin for possession.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Agree to disagree...teams aren't going to sit back when there is no loser point to fall back on.

Personally I would go 3 on 3 and then 2 on 2 until it ends. If you lose an OT game too bad for you...teams in every other sport survive. Christ in the NFL they flip a coin for possession.

Well, not every other sport (FIFA, Premier League).

[memphusk]

The best part about this series is John Lu's 70's look. Old time hockey.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

At any rate, aside from Price stealing game 1, this series has gone as expected. Leafs wrap it up in 5 in all likelihood.

“I need you to steal one win for us every series. I’ll win one game with my matchups. The rest is up to the players.”

Bob Hartley to Patrick Roy ahead of the Avalanche’s 2001 Stanley Cup run.

I think about this quote all the time.

It helps contextualize every poor decision the Habs make because Carey Price is their goalie.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

“I need you to steal one win for us every series. I’ll win one game with my matchups. The rest is up to the players.”

Bob Hartley to Patrick Roy ahead of the Avalanche’s 2002 Stanley Cup run.

I think about this quote all the time.

It helps contextualize every poor decision the Habs make because Carey Price is their goalie.

I believe Ducharme is one of Hartley’s protégés

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

“I need you to steal one win for us every series. I’ll win one game with my matchups. The rest is up to the players.”

Bob Hartley to Patrick Roy ahead of the Avalanche’s 2002 Stanley Cup run.

I think about this quote all the time.

It helps contextualize every poor decision the Habs make because Carey Price is their goalie.

If it was 2002, it didn’t work, because they didn’t win that year (it was 2001).

He forgot to add “By the way, my players are Forsberg, Sakic, Hedjuk, Tanguay, Drury, Bourque, Foote, Blake, and of course Yelle and Neimenen.”

The Habs don’t exactly have that lineup.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If it was 2002, it didn’t work, because they didn’t win that year (it was 2001).

He forgot to add “By the way, my players are Forsberg, Sakic, Hedjuk, Tanguay, Drury, Bourque, Foote, Blake, and of course Yelle and Neimenen.”

The Habs don’t exactly have that lineup.

That’s the point.

Even with a stacked roster, you can only expect a goalie to win you one game.

Maybe two.

Even when that goalie is Patrick Roy.

You need a goalie but if a goalie is all you have, it’s not enough.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Why though...why do we need points for losing. They are big boys, get over it.

Because losing in a shot out is a dumb way of deciding the game.

if you are going to have a shootout determine something, it shouldn't be worth the same as a regulation win.

But the big problem is having games count different points. That's why the 3-2-1 system is suggested, as an alternative to scrapping the shootout.

[transplant99]

I've always looked at it like this..

when you lose in a SO or 3 on 3, you didnt lose the game. You lost the SO or the 3 on 3. In the actual game, you tied each other.

Therefor the whole 1 pt each for a tie and then an additional pt for the winner of the SO/3 on 3.

In the playoffs there are no ties as we all know, so it stays 5 on 5 until decided.

In that scope it makes perfect sense.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I've always looked at it like this..

when you lose in a SO or 3 on 3, you didnt lose the game. You lost the SO or the 3 on 3. In the actual game, you tied each other.

Therefor the whole 1 pt each for a tie and then an additional pt for the winner of the SO/3 on 3.

In the playoffs there are no ties as we all know, so it stays 5 on 5 until decided.

In that score it makes perfect sense.

This might be a hot take, but I wish they’d bring back ties.

Sometimes, nobody’s good enough to win. That’s fine. That’s life. Stale mate is a thing.

Nothing ruins an awesome back and forth game with a spirited OT like a shootout.

It’s like “great, we won!”

No, not really.

It’s hockey. We play unlimited 5v5 sudden death in the playoffs.

It’s a reward for a regular season full of ties.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

This might be a hot take, but I wish they’d bring back ties.

Sometimes, nobody’s good enough to win. That’s fine. That’s life. Stale mate is a thing.

Nothing ruins an awesome back and forth game with a spirited OT like a shootout.

It’s like “great, we won!”

No, not really.

It’s hockey. We play unlimited 5v5 sudden death in the playoffs.

It’s a reward for a regular season full of ties.

I dont disagree but lets be honest....OT/SO is good for business. The TV side loves it because it keeps eyeballs glued to the network longer.

It also creates a bit of a false parity in the standings which more often than not leads to very meaningful games down the stretch of the regular season.

So they aren't getting rid of it all together but I believe there is a push to get rid of the SO and just go 3 on 3 until decided.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

This might be a hot take, but I wish they’d bring back ties.

Sometimes, nobody’s good enough to win. That’s fine. That’s life. Stale mate is a thing.

Nothing ruins an awesome back and forth game with a spirited OT like a shootout.

It’s like “great, we won!”

No, not really.

It’s hockey. We play unlimited 5v5 sudden death in the playoffs.

It’s a reward for a regular season full of ties.

Especially if you’re, say, Buffalo and you tie TB. You played the champs to a draw over 60 minutes! Maybe you deserve something for that.

I don’t mind 3 on 3 but given a choice between a tie getting a point and the shootout, I take the tie.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I dont disagree but lets be honest....OT/SO is good for business. The TV side loves it because it keeps eyeballs glued to the network longer.

It also creates a bit of a false parity in the standings which more often than not leads to very meaningful games down the stretch of the regular season.

So they aren't getting rid of it all together but I believe there is a push to get rid of the SO and just go 3 on 3 until decided.

I would guess that 10 minutes of 3v3 would virtually eliminate shootouts.

I just don’t see most teams being able to play that much mistake-free hockey with that much space for that long.

Try that out, AHL.