Fixing the Draft, Stopping the Tank

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by 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.

It's no coincidence that a lot of scoring records are from an era when the goalies were wearing super heavy but relatively small pads, there had been recent expansion and coaching defence was pretty limited.

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

I wonder: might the loser point system encourage tanking? It does make it harder to fall in the standings. Meaning the real worst teams have to "fight" to show it. A 3-2-1 point system may allow losers to emerge more naturally, without having to tank for a higher draft position.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

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.

Teams weren’t necessarily better, there was just a bigger disparity between the best and the worst which, if anything, lends more credence to teams like Boston in today’s NHL. The least talented players in today’s NHL are far, far better (more athletic, more talented, better training and conditioning, etc) than at almost any point in the history of the NHL. Hell, the NHL had a long history where there were multiple guys taking up spots that could barely skate and existed to punch a face. So, no, the best teams then weren’t better than the best teams today just because.

The fact is, the current system maintains as much similarity with any previous system as possible, while making the game more entertaining and ensuring teams don’t mail it in for the tie (which is why it was introduced). It’s fine to say that doesn’t matter, but arguing the sanctity of the previous point system matters while arguing for 3-2-1-0 doesn’t make any sense.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

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.

You’re welcome.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And, again, this is a point that exists in most major and junior leagues across the world.

Because they are all copying the NHL's bad idea. That's not an argument.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Because they are all copying the NHL's bad idea. That's not an argument.

The NHL and KHL are the only two major hockey leagues that share this specific point system, however, in the majority of other leagues, the point systems are completely different and yet the OTL point remains.

It’s not an argument, you’re right, it’s a fact. You’ll run out of arguments before we run out of facts.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The NHL and KHL are the only two major hockey leagues that share this specific point system, however, in the majority of other leagues, the point systems are completely different and yet the OTL point remains.

The AHL and all three CHL leagues use the same points system. They tally OTL and SOL in separate columns, but give one point for each. They adopted the loser point because the NHL did it.

The NCAA, SHL, DEL, and Swiss National League have three points for a regulation win and no loser point. All games are worth the same number of points.

The ‘loser point’ that people are complaining about is specifically the additional point awarded to the loser in OT/SO of a game for which the winner receives the full number of points for a regulation win. This is the NHL's own bad idea, imitated by its principal North American feeder leagues.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The AHL and all three CHL leagues use the same points system. They tally OTL and SOL in separate columns, but give one point for each. They adopted the loser point because the NHL did it.

The NCAA, SHL, DEL, and Swiss National League have three points for a regulation win and no loser point. All games are worth the same number of points.

The ‘loser point’ that people are complaining about is specifically the additional point awarded to the loser in OT/SO of a game for which the winner receives the full number of points for a regulation win. This is the NHL's own bad idea, imitated by its principal North American feeder leagues.

It's not an additional point. It's the same point they got when they were tied at the end of regulation before (or at the end of the OT period prior to the shootout). The additional point is the one which goes to the winner.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

5 v 5 OT doesn’t work.

4 v 4 for 5 mins and 3 v 3 for the remainder until you have a winner with 5 minute periods.

That would be horrible. I can't imagine a back to back with a team that had just played a long overtime game. Hell I can't imagine a scenario where as a fan I would be invested enough to watch a long overtime game in January on a weekday.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The AHL and all three CHL leagues use the same points system. They tally OTL and SOL in separate columns, but give one point for each. They adopted the loser point because the NHL did it.

The NCAA, SHL, DEL, and Swiss National League have three points for a regulation win and no loser point. All games are worth the same number of points.

The ‘loser point’ that people are complaining about is specifically the additional point awarded to the loser in OT/SO of a game for which the winner receives the full number of points for a regulation win. This is the NHL's own bad idea, imitated by its principal North American feeder leagues.

The SHL, DEL, and Swiss National League all award a point for an overtime or shootout loss. Not sure what you’re talking about. They didn’t all just copy the NHL, they have different point systems.

The fact is that receiving a point for an overtime or shootout loss in hockey is extremely common across the hockey world, even those that differ overall (such as the NHL vs SHL, or DEL).

Take issue with them not awarding the extra point for a regulation win, if that’s what you want to complain about, because that’s the differentiator. If everyone just copies the NHL, why didn’t they copy that? And if they all copied the point for OTL, why did the DEL do it first?

German time travellers, obviously.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's not an additional point. It's the same point they got when they were tied at the end of regulation before (or at the end of the OT period prior to the shootout). The additional point is the one which goes to the winner.

The winner has always received two points. The additional point is the one that was added when they decided an overtime loser should get one.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The SHL, DEL, and Swiss National League all award a point for an overtime or shootout loss. Not sure what you’re talking about. They didn’t all just copy the NHL, they have different point systems.

They award only two points for an overtime or shootout win. All games are worth three points.

The fact is that receiving a point for an overtime or shootout loss in hockey is extremely common across the hockey world, even those that differ overall (such as the NHL vs SHL, or DEL).

The fact is that only the NHL and the feeder leagues that aped it give out an extra point in some games but not others.

Take issue with them not awarding the extra point for a regulation win, if that’s what you want to complain about, because that’s the differentiator. If everyone just copies the NHL, why didn’t they copy that? And if they all copied the point for OTL, why did the DEL do it first?

German time travellers, obviously.

The CHL leagues and the AHL have two points for a win and one for an OT/SO loss. They copied the NHL's stupid idea because they wanted to be just like them.

Contrary to your initial assertion, the other leagues do not have a ‘loser point’. They do not give out an extra point for games that go to overtime. Every game is worth three points.

Are you beginning to understand my objection here, or do I have to spell out the obvious in even smaller words?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

They award only two points for an overtime or shootout win. All games are worth three points.

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

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The fact is that only the NHL and the feeder leagues that aped it give out an extra point in some games but not others.

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.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Contrary to your initial assertion, the other leagues do not have a ‘loser point’. They do not give out an extra point for games that go to overtime. Every game is worth three points.

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

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

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Are you beginning to understand my objection here, or do I have to spell out the obvious in even smaller words?

I don’t think you understand your objection, because I do and I’m showing you facts that say your objection (as you’ve defined it) doesn’t make sense, 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.

Your objection is that some games award two points and some award three, which is true but a non-issue. You’ve decided, arbitrarily, that the “loser point” is the additional point. 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.

So,
- “xxx doesn’t give out loser points” We can scrap that. Provably wrong.
- “the loser point is the extra point” Also provably wrong. Why? If you compare it to other systems, everyone gives it out. 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.

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?

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!

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

[butterfly]

It's such an incredible achievement to be tied after the game is over. We should really do that for every game. Give each team a point before the game starts and then the winner gets 1 more point. They'll be so motivated to throw caution to the wind and win!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's such an incredible achievement to be tied after the game is over. We should really do that for every game. Give each team a point before the game starts and then the winner gets 1 more point. They'll be so motivated to throw caution to the wind and win!

Who are you talking to? Is there a point you’re struggling to make directly?

[Flamesfan05]

For the love of god, just tank for a franchise player that you don’t have

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

For the love of god, just tank for a franchise player that you don’t have

Preferably 2 or 3.

I honestly have zero issue with tanking. I think it's exciting to see teams try and build their franchise up again. Teams that never draft high like Minnesota, Nashville, St Louis, are all boring teams.

[The Cobra]

The only true way top stop tanking is to have every team with an equal chance of winning the lottery.

And since most equate rebuilding with tanking, it wouldn't stop it anyway, as the best way for a marginal team to become a contender is to trade expiring assets for prospects/draft picks.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Preferably 2 or 3.

I honestly have zero issue with tanking. I think it's exciting to see teams try and build their franchise up again. Teams that never draft high like Minnesota, Nashville, St Louis, are all boring teams.

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


Teams need to at least excel in one

[ThisIsAnOutrage]

Originally Posted by butterfly

It's such an incredible achievement to be tied after the game is over. We should really do that for every game. Give each team a point before the game starts and then the winner gets 1 more point. They'll be so motivated to throw caution to the wind and win!

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