3-point wins

[Steffen]

This is a continuation from the Shootout in Playoffs thread started by doulos...

Thieving Giraffe wrote:
At the very least I have a problem with a shootout win being worth the same as a regulation win. Not sure I like the soccer system, but I certainly don\'t like the way it is now. And there\'s no way I\'d ever want to see a seven-game playoff series decided in a shootout. Thankfully I agree with you on that... it will never happen.[/quote]

I don\'t know the soccer system, but I think that the introduction of the shootout will have an impact on the NHL record books as large as that of the closer in baseball. We\'ve already seen and heard discussions about asterisks for NHL goalie win records.

So, since we\'re here already (in 3-point win land), why not just give 3 points to winners in regulation, and then the 2-1 we have now?

Thieving Giraffe wrote:
... Tampa Bay would not be in the playoffs without their shootout record, and that\'s millions of dollars of additional revenue to support a team structured to pay too much to three players, and not enough to the rest of the squad. Ironically, those same three shooters got them their - what, 10-1? - record in shootouts, and with it a playoff berth. ... [/quote]

Very good point. 3-point regulation wins would force more balance on teams.

Post edited by: Steffen, at: 2007/04/14 14:49

[hlfire]

Well, if they want to compare to historical stats and reduce the asterix effect, this is what some have talked about on radio/talk shows. I don\'t see this happening in the NHL at all though.

4 - win in regulation
3 - win in OT/shootout
1 - OT/shootout loss
0 - loss in regulation

To compare to historical stats, divide the numbers by 2. Sounds simple right? Well, not really. In the old days, ties are worth 1 point so in a 4 point system it should be 2. No system is perfect but it is a good alternative. An alternative is:

4 - win in regulation
3 - win in OT
2 - win in shootout
1 - OT/shootout loss
0 - loss in regulation

I like this method beter because games will not have the maximum 4 point value unless it\'s won in Regulation or OT. People complain that an OT or shootout win should not equate to a regulation win. In theory this should force teams to try to win it in regulation or OT instead of playing it safe till OT like they do now. We know in real life it will not have the desired effect we like. For true hardcore fans, you can use the same system that is closer to the old by making a straight outright win 2 points. With the emphasis of growing the game in the US and getting new fans, I don\'t see the NHL wanting to confuse people with 0.5 points in the standings.

2 - win in regulation
1.5 - win in OT
1 - win in shootout
0.5 - OT/shootout loss

[repenttokyo]

you know, in the old days they had shorter seasons too, but I didn\'t see asterisks beside bernie parent\'s record for single season wins, or any scoring records made by players who are playing more games than the original six teams did.....times change, the sport changes, we can\'t impose a complicated scoring system to remain \"historically faithful\". Faithful to which era? the 80\'s? the 70\'s? the 60\'s? the 30\'s?

[hlfire]

That\'s why I care less what they do as long as it\'s for the good of the game going forward.

[Steffen]

repenttokyo wrote:

you know, in the old days they had shorter seasons too, but I didn\'t see asterisks beside bernie parent\'s record for single season wins, or any scoring records made by players who are playing more games than the original six teams did.....times change, the sport changes, we can\'t impose a complicated scoring system to remain \"historically faithful\". Faithful to which era? the 80\'s? the 70\'s? the 60\'s? the 30\'s?

Agreed. The NHL doesn\'t yet have the reverence for stats that MLB enjoys. (but I look forward to it)

hlfire got it right. Good systems exist, but Be/uttman won\'t care.

But if the NHL ever decided to tweak the point system, roto-goalies\' values would pinwheel.

Steffen

[goose191919]

I think they should do almost what they had before the lame shootout:

2 points for a regulation win
1 point for an OT/shootout win
0 points for a loss/OT loss/shootout loss




This will make games count more and make the players play harder for those points. Maybe even play less defensive?


Or if we go to the 3 point regulation win, they should counter that (to help the record books) by reducing the number of games. 82 is a bit much, maybe bring it down to 70-75 so the players would be able to perform a little better.

[hoopej2]

I\'m confused about why people are worried about the 3 point win wreaking havoc with the record books.

Or if we go to the 3 point regulation win, they should counter that (to help the record books) by reducing the number of games.

Goalie stats are measured in wins/losses/shutouts etc. No one cares how many points he earned his team. If the worry is about how many points a team gets in the season, that is a bit more understandable but anyone that knows anything doesn\'t care about the points earned, they care about the winning percentage.

Also Goose, how does changing to a 3 point system require us to decrease the length of the season? If you are thinking that guys will try harder in the game to earn their team that victory, guys should be playing their hearts out each and every game as it is, changing the point system should not change the effort exerted by each player. If we decrease the number of games in the season, the same guys who dog it during the 82 game sked will dog it during a 70-75 game sked. We know or have all worked with this type of person who does enough just to get by. It\'s human nature, some people get complacent and don\'t care about excelling. I\'m surprised it happens in the NHL but it does.

Post edited by: hoopej2, at: 2007/04/19 11:43

[Zorro]

I don\'t know why we are wasting sooo much time on this subject especially when it is out of our hands. But I guess we are just stating what we would like to see happen. So here\'s my idea..

I mostly agree with the guy they call Goose but he has a Shark as his picture, weird. Kinda like the Z-man with a CAN flag instead of a flaming Z.

I think it should go down this way boys:

2 points for a regulation win
2 points for an over time win
1 point for a shootout win

--why do we insist on awarding a team that loses. Here guys take a point even though you lost in overtime, sorry but have a great night. Better luck next game. Play like you did the last game and we will probably award you with another point.?? Its just sooo bizarre to me.

Fans just don\'t want to see games ending in ties, and this way you still have the shoot-out but teams are fighting for that one loan point in the shootout.Play better or tougher in regulation and OT and get the 2 points.

Zorro..

[goose191919]

hoopej, my point of reducing the season if we go to 3 point wins is that the record for most points by a team would be skewed. also, players would get more nights off in between games to nurse nagging injuries (not the ones that keep them out) so that they are fresher for each game. it would reduce traveling with a couple less road games, which will also help the players. it would produce a better quality game.....so i say quality over quantity.


by the way, my nickname is goose and i am a season ticket holder for the Sharks - hence the name and logo.

[Zorro]

I kinda had a feeling on that Goose. I love the Sharks aswell, well Thornton anyway. I gave you a KARMA boost just cause it looked like you could use a little boost today bud. I like when a guy explains things thoroughly..

[goose191919]

thanks....i hope that wasnt sarcasm though.....hard to pick up in written form

[repenttokyo]

goose191919 wrote:

hoopej, my point of reducing the season if we go to 3 point wins is that the record for most points by a team would be skewed. also, players would get more nights off in between games to nurse nagging injuries (not the ones that keep them out) so that they are fresher for each game. it would reduce traveling with a couple less road games, which will also help the players. it would produce a better quality game.....so i say quality over quantity.


by the way, my nickname is goose and i am a season ticket holder for the Sharks - hence the name and logo.

you won\'t ever see a shorter season - too much lost revenue for owners.

[goose191919]

Unfortunately, I that is the truth. If anything, they would want more games.

It is sad how money completely ruins sports. Look at the top three: baseball, basketball, and football. Even American college sports are on the decline because of money (NCAA football and basketball). That is one thing I love about hockey (and not selling out too badly) and soccer. At least there are no commercials in soccer and hockey only has 1 timeout and 2-3 tv timeouts a period. I can\'t wait for the day that EVERY game is broadcast in HD. I don\'t think any other sport is prettier or as aesthetically pleasing on TV than hockey in HD.

[Egon]

Putting an asterisk next to a record because circumstances are different is rediculous. No record should ever be kept because they would mean nothing except for the year they are recorded.

Things change every season and if you want to put an asterisk next to Marty\'s win record then you need to put one next to every single record that Gretzky has. His points were scored when the goal totals were close to double what it is today. Yet he is regarded as the greatest player of all time.

Yes i realize I sound cynical but I hate the fact that anything new is considered tainted and everything in the past is considered perfection since people want to cling to the past and refuse to accept that today could be better then it was.

[lanky522]

I\'ve stated this before, but I\'ll repeat it here... Tampa bay owes it\'s shootout success to it\'s goalies every bit as much as they owe it to their shooters (if not more). Their goalies were tremendous in the shootout this season.

I don\'t know if I agree that shootouts should be worth less points than a win... if you change that, then what about overtime wins? Where do you draw the line?

Should they just make it so that if you don\'t win in regulation, you can get at most 2 points? Leaving the overtime losing team with 1 point? And giving regulation wins 3 points?

I suppose I\'d accept that...

Post edited by: lanky522, at: 2007/04/19 22:24