Around the League XXXVII: Sens fire Boucher

[AmericanDream]

Basically your system is just rewarding the loser. It's no different than giving 2 points for a win no matter what, and 0 for a loss, no matter what.

Just go back to win=2, loss=0. No tie points, OT points, etc.

how is it rewarding for a loss, it is the same 1 point as is? - the 3 point system rewards the win making it much more important as the gap is now 2 points instead of 1 for a team losing in OT...and the gap widens by another point for a team winning in regulation...this system would eliminate a lot of teams still currently in the mix right now from the playoffs.

 

[AmericanDream]

lets just use this-

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means they have 25 points in the current system.

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means 35 points in the 3 point system - the gap widens immensely for winning teams and would knock off losing teams quicker...

Stars go 8-7-5 in their first 20 games - 21 points in current system
Stars go 8-7-5 - in their first 20 games - 29 points in 3 point system

in the current system they are only 4 points behind us, the 3 point system puts them back by 6 points - the gap widens..

 

[ChiHawks10]

how is it rewarding for a loss, it is the same 1 point as is? - the 3 point system rewards the win making it much more important as the gap is now 2 points instead of 1 for a team losing in OT...and the gap widens by another point for a team winning in regulation...this system would eliminate a lot of teams still currently in the mix right now from the playoffs.

I just mean that system is still rewarding a team for losing by giving them a point. It's essentially identical to going back to the win=2, loss=0 system, anyways, so might as well just do that.

 

[AmericanDream]

I just mean that system is still rewarding a team for losing by giving them a point. It's essentially identical to going back to the win=2, loss=0 system, anyways, so might as well just do that.

it is essentially identical but 0 points for going into OT and losing is long gone..teams still get rewarded for going into OT, that is something that cannot be taken away nor will it - once you have something in place it is very hard to take it away, and though I wish it would just be the 2 point 0 point system that isn't ever coming back...this at least helps separate the pretenders a bit more while still giving teams that 1 point they have been accustomed to.

as I said, based off what we currently have, and what I have seen proposed by the 3 point system, I would like to see how it looks overall and compare at the end of the year how much the gap would really be for many teams....

 

[ChiHawk21]

lets just use this-

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means they have 25 points in the current system.

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means 35 points in the 3 point system - the gap widens immensely for winning teams and would knock off losing teams quicker...

Stars go 8-7-5 in their first 20 games - 21 points in current system
Stars go 8-7-5 - in their first 20 games - 29 points in 3 point system

in the current system they are only 4 points behind us, the 3 point system puts them back by 6 points - the gap widens..

but 4 points now and 6 points in the new system is still just 2 wins either way.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I've always wanted to see this:
3 - Regulation win
2 - OT/SO win
1 - OT/SO loss

There needs to be more of an incentive to win in regulation.

 

[AmericanDream]

but 4 points now and 6 points in the new system is still just 2 wins either way.

sure, but that is after 20 games...imagine after 40 games if they had the same record...then after 60 games..after 60 games if the record was the same for each 20 game interval the difference would now be negative 6 more points than what they would have now..that would definitely eliminate more teams IMO by the deadline.

I didn't say the difference would be huge, but it definitely can widen and I think we would see more separation between the have and the have not's than what we currently do.

 

[AmericanDream]

Since the GM meetings are going on, how about another point of discussion-

who here likes the idea of power plays being played out regardless of a goal being scored?? simply put, 2 minute for boarding call, team on the power play scores in 45 seconds, but instead of the power play going away it stays for the final 1:15...this would make taking penalties a bigger deal than it is now...I like it how about you all??

 

[AmericanDream]

Jack Eichel is good - that is all...

 

[x Tame Impala]

Since the GM meetings are going on, how about another point of discussion-

who here likes the idea of power plays being played out regardless of a goal being scored?? simply put, 2 minute for boarding call, team on the power play scores in 45 seconds, but instead of the power play going away it stays for the final 1:15...this would make taking penalties a bigger deal than it is now...I like it how about you all??

I think it’d artificially increase scoring and in a bad way. 7-4 hockey games aren’t better for the league IMO. I think scoring is right at its sweet spot this year and shouldn’t go any higher

 

[AmericanDream]

I think it’d artificially increase scoring and in a bad way. 7-4 hockey games aren’t better for the league IMO. I think scoring is right at its sweet spot this year and shouldn’t go any higher

we are only averaging 6.1 goals per game, and power play goals are actually down this year...now 6.1 goals is much better than 5 goals per game 6-8 years ago, but we are still WAYYYYYYYYSSSS away from the 1980's and getting 7-4 games nightly..the power play goals being down is why I think this was getting suggested/talked about - power plays just aren't that great anymore, but for those that can score, they should get the full time to score as many as they can I guess.

 

[Clownish]

Seems like it would turn more games into blowouts early and for what, a cheap holding penalty?

 

[AmericanDream]

Seems like it would turn more games into blowouts early and for what, a cheap holding penalty?

you get to keep scoring if it is a major...doesn't seem like teams are scoring more than one during a major...I don't think it would change a lot to be honest.

 

[ChiHawks10]

you get to keep scoring if it is a major...doesn't seem like teams are scoring more than one during a major...I don't think it would change a lot to be honest.

It would still be a rare occasion. How many times do you even see two goals on a 4 min double minor?

 

[clydesdale line]

Oilers came back and beat the Sabres tonight. Hawks drop to 7th (tied for 6th with Vancouver actually in points) in the tankathon for the tankers.

 

[Giovi]

Since the GM meetings are going on, how about another point of discussion-

who here likes the idea of power plays being played out regardless of a goal being scored?? simply put, 2 minute for boarding call, team on the power play scores in 45 seconds, but instead of the power play going away it stays for the final 1:15...this would make taking penalties a bigger deal than it is now...I like it how about you all??

I think it would lead to refs being more hesitant to make calls. And that leads to the game reverting back to the days where big, dumb and slow teams could maul their way to wins.

It would have the effect of negating all the progress made toward making the game faster and more offensive. Just my opinion.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

How does HF Hawks feel about ties and the current overtime situation? I like the shootout, hate ties, and love watching 3v3 but there's a new thread every week complaining about the shootout.

Having some games worth 3 pts and some worth 2 is idiotic. I'd prefer just going back to ties, but that's a non starter. I'd favor the 3, 2, 1 system vs the current one.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Ultimately, I would not like a three point system. I don't like the idea that some wins are worth more than others.

Ultimately, why is the difference between a 1-0 regulation win so vastly different from a 1-0 overtime win that you'd need a special point system to account for it compared to a 1-0 regulation win vs a 10-0 regulation win?

1-0 regulation vs 1-0 OT? Different points
10-0 regulation vs 1-0 regulation. Same points.

I think it's better than what we have now, but I'd still say it's inferior to just wins and losses.

The current system treats some loses as better than others.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Which I mentioned I also don't like. Go wins and losses only.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

lets just use this-

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means they have 25 points in the current system.

Hawks go 10-5-5 in their first 20 games - that means 35 points in the 3 point system - the gap widens immensely for winning teams and would knock off losing teams quicker...

Stars go 8-7-5 in their first 20 games - 21 points in current system
Stars go 8-7-5 - in their first 20 games - 29 points in 3 point system

in the current system they are only 4 points behind us, the 3 point system puts them back by 6 points - the gap widens..

It does widen, but it's still 2 regulation wins either way in either scenario.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Ultimately, I would not like a three point system. I don't like the idea that some wins are worth more than others.

Ultimately, why is the difference between a 1-0 regulation win so vastly different from a 1-0 overtime win that you'd need a special point system to account for it compared to a 1-0 regulation win vs a 10-0 regulation win?

1-0 regulation vs 1-0 OT? Different points
10-0 regulation vs 1-0 regulation. Same points.

I think it's better than what we have now, but I'd still say it's inferior to just wins and losses.

Regulation time = Actual Hockey
Overtime = Something resembling hockey, but not really
Shootout = Definitely NOT hockey

So yeah, a shootout loss should totally be as detrimental as a regulation one...

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Regulation time = Actual Hockey
Overtime = Something resembling hockey, but not really
Shootout = Definitely NOT hockey

So yeah, a shootout loss should totally be as detrimental as a regulation one...

But that's the argument I don't understand. If the shootout is a gimmick that's not even remotely hockey, why let it decide anything? Why let it decide between one point vs two points but balk at letting it decide between a win or a loss up and down?

To me, that comes off far more as an argument against the shootout even existing versus an argument against wins and losses.

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

I don't know what people's fascination with high scoring games in all sports are. Defense is a part of every sport, too , ya know. There is nothing I hate worse than a 48-42 football game. I can't stand 7-6 or 6-5 hockey games. I like for my games to have a moderate amount of scoring. High scoring games are just sloppy, poorly coached, lots of failed assigments/execution. To me, the higher the score, the lower the quality of play. Teams should have to earn their points/runs/goals.
In my sports the ideal scores are:
NFL: 24-20 or 21-17 or there abouts
NHL: 4-3 or 3-2
MLB: 5-4 or 4-3
NBA: Both teams score between 90-105 pts.
These are the signs of a well played game on both sides.

 

[ClydeLee]

I mean sudden death isnt the truth to the sport anyway.

The NBA and MLB are the only professional leagues that play the same game into regular season extra time. And the MLB is considering changing that when you go late in it.

I dont get the attachment to these arguments of gimmick or not real hockey. That's why its not how playoffs games go and shouldnt be in Olympics anymore. But regular season games extra time dont need some help or definitive ending of the highest form of the sport.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

Since the GM meetings are going on, how about another point of discussion-

who here likes the idea of power plays being played out regardless of a goal being scored?? simply put, 2 minute for boarding call, team on the power play scores in 45 seconds, but instead of the power play going away it stays for the final 1:15...this would make taking penalties a bigger deal than it is now...I like it how about you all??

Not a fan. I think the untended consequences of this would be that the refs would be even more hesitant to call penalties than they already are and it could actually lower scoring or at least not work as intended.

It seems like a solution in need of a problem. I don't have a problem with the way it is now.