Post-Game Talk: LEAFS WIN 4-2: Hey Jets is there anything better than losing to the Leafs

[Squiffy]

Sticking with original prediction made after Seattle game of Leafs winning both on the weird B2B for lolz. Essentially trolling the entire hockey world and Leaf Nation in particular. If the Leafs were a poster here they wouldn't have an avatar.

Was I right or was I right lol..

The absolute Leaf-iest thing possible was the goalie everyone wanted to fire in to the middle of the sun getting red hot and beating a team that had been rolling the league for two months on a weird back to back. It's basic chaos theory.

 

[tmlms13]

What's your point?

Does that changes what the Winnipeg fans chanted 7 years ago?

 

[AcerComputer]

I do t think there is a perfect solution but currently if a game is tied in the 3rd the last few minutes both teams are looking to get it into overtime so they collect a point.

If there is no loser point, then the team always plays to win in Reg & OT, because the incentive is the same.

 

[ACC1224]

If there is no loser point, then the team always plays to win in Reg & OT, because the incentive is the same.

That's not how I recall it.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Personally I would prefer every game to be worth the same - whether it's two points (2 for a win, 1 each for a tie, and 0 for a loss, with no OT or SO - or 2 for a win and 0 for a loss) or three points (3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT or SO win, 1 for an OT or SO loss, and 0 for a regulation loss).

A couple of years ago I reworked the final standings using all three variations, and there was very little impact on the standings - as far as I recall, there was one change in who made the playoffs, and maybe three other situations where a team moved up a spot in the overall standings.

 

[MSZ]

What's your point?

Does that changes what the Winnipeg fans chanted 7 years ago?

It was news worthy by the time I made that post. Move on if you think otherwise.

 

[AcerComputer]

That's not how I recall it.

I am referring to my previous comment if they changed it so that Reg/OT/SO = 2 points, loss = 0. No loser point, no ties. You lose in OT or SO you get 0 points.

 

[egd27]

It changes the game-play in the 3rd period and OT, where teams are playing to just collect 1 point, rather than win. I much prefer the current system. One could go a step further an eliminate the loser point altogether - and just award 2 points for a win Reg/OT/SO. With 0 points for a loss.

I would counter with the current system causes teams to play for the guaranteed single in regulation and take their chance for the bonus point in OT/SO more often.

As @Gary Nylund posted earlier, the fact that some games award 2 pts and others award 3 pts is bush league. If they insist on keeping the gimmicks then IMO they should award 3 pts for a reg win, 0 for a reg loss, and the same system for the gimmicks (2 & 1)

 

[AcerComputer]

I would counter with the current system causes teams to play for the guaranteed single in regulation and take their chance for the bonus point in OT/SO more often.

As @Gary Nylund posted earlier, the fact that some games award 2 pts and others award 3 pts is bush league. If they insist on keeping the gimmicks then IMO they should award 3 pts for a reg win, 0 for a reg loss, and the same system for the gimmicks (2 & 1)

I meant to say it changes the game play in the 3rd period (not OT as well). Once they have the loser point they obviously play to win in OT & SO at that point. Hence why I suggested to do away with the loser point altogether. 2 points for a win Reg/OT/SO. With 0 points for a loss

 

[egd27]

I meant to say it changes the game play in the 3rd period (not OT as well). Once they have the loser point they obviously play to win in OT & SO at that point.

Yes, I read what you said. Why do you think they are more likely to play for the tie in the 3rd if there was no OT / SO?

 

[AcerComputer]

Yes, I read what you said. Why do you think they are more likely to play for the tie in the 3rd if there was no OT / SO?

You clearly didn't read what I said. As I said the opposite. I also never suggested there should be no OT/SO. Just that there would be no points for getting to OT/SO, thus there is no soft play to get it to OT in the 3rd period and collect the free point - since there are no loser points to collect.