Post-Game Talk: Canucks def. Blackhawks - 3-1 (Chiasson, Boeser, Schenn)

[alternate]

We have a 4-8. record in jan. The loser point makes us look better. Writing 4-4-4 to make it look better is bulljive.The truth is we only managed to win 4 games. The outstanding december is keeping us close but we will need a similar streak to have a real chance.

Loser points still count towards the playoffs. And while the January numbers won't get us back into the playoff race, can't ignore the Murderers' Row road trip, and the significant impact of Covid protocols on the roster. Getting through that at .500 for points is a positive imo.

Now need to string together an unbeaten stretch.

 

[rocketchu]

Loser points still count towards the playoffs. And while the January numbers won't get us back into the playoff race, can't ignore the Murderers' Row road trip, and the significant impact of Covid protocols on the roster. Getting through that at .500 for points is a positive imo.

Now need to string together an unbeaten stretch.

Nothing drives me crazy like the term "loser point". It is not a loser point as the team getting it did not actually lose in a legitimate fashion. It is actually a "fake win point" as it is a free point for winning what amounts to a coin toss. The idea that a team doesn't deserve a point when the game is tied after regulation, and then they lose in a 3 on 3 or shootout coin toss, is absurd. Also not worth me complaining about but triggers are triggers!

 

[Chairman Maouth]

It's unreal that our 0.700 record ranks only 9th..

That's crazy...

Answers from the category - bleeding f***ing obvious please, Alex.

If Aquilini had only pulled the trigger earlier, we'd be secure in a playoff position right now.

 

[Melvin]

Nothing drives me crazy like the term "loser point". It is not a loser point as the team getting it did not actually lose in a legitimate fashion. It is actually a "fake win point" as it is a free point for winning what amounts to a coin toss. The idea that a team doesn't deserve a point when the game is tied after regulation, and then they lose in a 3 on 3 or shootout coin toss, is absurd. Also not worth me complaining about but triggers are triggers!

I agree.

for all intents and purposes these games, “win or lose” should be viewed as draws with a bonus point going to one of the teams arbitrarily. The funniest thing for me is that the entire tone of the Post game thread hinges on the results of this meaningless coin toss.

 

[DL44]

Nothing drives me crazy like the term "loser point". It is not a loser point as the team getting it did not actually lose in a legitimate fashion. It is actually a "fake win point" as it is a free point for winning what amounts to a coin toss. The idea that a team doesn't deserve a point when the game is tied after regulation, and then they lose in a 3 on 3 or shootout coin toss, is absurd. Also not worth me complaining about but triggers are triggers!

Think of the loser/bonus pt thing as a lil IQ indicator like I do. lol.

on a slight tangent now, let's see if can modify the way some look at the standings:

The way the point system is structured, it puts a priority on Wins and Not losing in regulation.

The formula for your point total is : Game played + (Wins - Regulation losses)

OTL are throw away games... mean nothing games. They represent either blowing an opportunity for a Win or avoiding a Regulation loss. OTL's are like a burn card in poker... does nothing but make the deck smaller.... Burns a game away off your schedule.

The standings are all about Winning games and Not losing in Regulation.

How do you look at the standings? When i look at the standings i only look at the Win-Loss portion to see where we actually are....

I see us at +1.. Flames at +9, Kings and Ducks at +7, Oilers at +6...
OT games on the OOT are so annoying because you insatntly realize neither team is earning a minus on the night...

Anyways....

 

[geebster]

We have a 4-8. record in jan. The loser point makes us look better. Writing 4-4-4 to make it look better is bulljive.The truth is we only managed to win 4 games. The outstanding december is keeping us close but we will need a similar streak to have a real chance.

You do realize the main difference last season between Montreal making the playoffs and other teams not making it was the "loser point". If you get to overtime when you lose, you are far better off than teams that dont. 4-8 is not the same as 4-4-4.

Sure, people are stuck on the old school 0.500 hockey thing as being "good" which it isnt anymore because of the additional point in OT. Points percentage is more important now, etc, but that doesnt mean OT points just dont count at all.

Also that game last night was just...embarrassing for the Hawks...I feel bad for Fleury tbh.

 

[likash]

You do realize the main difference last season between Montreal making the playoffs and other teams not making it was the "loser point". If you get to overtime when you lose, you are far better off than teams that dont. 4-8 is not the same as 4-4-4.

Sure, people are stuck on the old school 0.500 hockey thing as being "good" which it isnt anymore because of the additional point in OT. Points percentage is more important now, etc, but that doesnt mean OT points just dont count at all.

Also that game last night was just...embarrassing for the Hawks...I feel bad for Fleury tbh.

The hawks have like 8 wins and don't feel bad for them. They've won 3 cups.

 

[Melvin]

You do realize the main difference last season between Montreal making the playoffs and other teams not making it was the "loser point". If you get to overtime when you lose, you are far better off than teams that dont. 4-8 is not the same as 4-4-4.

Sure, people are stuck on the old school 0.500 hockey thing as being "good" which it isnt anymore because of the additional point in OT. Points percentage is more important now, etc, but that doesnt mean OT points just dont count at all.

Also that game last night was just...embarrassing for the Hawks...I feel bad for Fleury tbh.

That's not true.

Montreal was 20-21-15 in regulation. Calgary was 22-27-7, Ottawa 18-28-10 and Vancouver 17-29-10. Montreal was the best team of those 4.

If anything, Montreal got *less* out of losertime because they happened to go a crazy 4-11 in the coin flip. Losing 11 times in the shootout is not some crazy "lucky" thing, it's actually very unlucky. They should have had 4-5 more points than they had, if they'd broke even on shootouts. But they make the playoffs even if OT/SO doesn't exist and all games end in the 3rd.

As someone else alluded to, the most overrated teams are *not* the teams with a lot of "loser points," it's the teams with a lot of loser wins. Like the Canucks with their "Bruce there it is 7-0" stretch which was really like 4 wins and 3 draws but they happened to go 3-0 in OT/SO.

Columbus this season were completely overrated to start the year because they started the season like 7-1 or something in OT, now that that has evened out they've been falling down the standings. They are 13-22-8 in regulation.

EDIT: I just realized I mis-read the standings and actually, Columbus is still 7-1 in OT/SO. That team completely sucks.

 

[Melvin]

Think of the loser/bonus pt thing as a lil IQ indicator like I do. lol.

on a slight tangent now, let's see if can modify the way some look at the standings:

The way the point system is structured, it puts a priority on Wins and Not losing in regulation.

The formula for your point total is : Game played + (Wins - Regulation losses)

OTL are throw away games... mean nothing games. They represent either blowing an opportunity for a Win or avoiding a Regulation loss. OTL's are like a burn card in poker... does nothing but make the deck smaller.... Burns a game away off your schedule.

The standings are all about Winning games and Not losing in Regulation.

How do you look at the standings? When i look at the standings i only look at the Win-Loss portion to see where we actually are....

I see us at +1.. Flames at +9, Kings and Ducks at +7, Oilers at +6...
OT games on the OOT are so annoying because you insatntly realize neither team is earning a minus on the night...

Anyways....

I object to the idea that all wins are wins but not all losses are losses.

For me, I just look at regulation record. OT games are draws. They are a coin flip. I could not care less what happens once the pond hockey exhibition begins.

NHL.com unfortunately does not conveniently show Regulation record as part of the default standings, but hockey-reference.com does, along with a RgPt% which is what I primarily go by. Going by this, you can also once again treat .500 as .500, which is nice.

The idea that if you "win" in the shootout then that's just like any regulation win, but if you "lose" in the shootout, then that's like the burn card in cards, that's non-sensical to me. Being good or bad in the shootout has no bearing on anything to do with hockey and does not carryover to anything in the playoffs.

 

[DL44]

I object to the idea that all wins are wins but not all losses are losses.

For me, I just look at regulation record. OT games are draws. They are a coin flip. I could not care less what happens once the pond hockey exhibition begins.

NHL.com unfortunately does not conveniently show Regulation record as part of the default standings, but hockey-reference.com does, along with a RgPt% which is what I primarily go by. Going by this, you can also once again treat .500 as .500, which is nice.

The idea that if you "win" in the shootout then that's just like any regulation win, but if you "lose" in the shootout, then that's like the burn card in cards, that's non-sensical to me. Being good or bad in the shootout has no bearing on anything to do with hockey and does not carryover to anything in the playoffs.

Doesn't matter if you object or not... The simple fact is the current system is set up that you need to Win any way you can and avoid losing in regulation.
Regulation records don't matter.

Only time regulation win totals even matter at all is if teams are tied after 82...
Points = Games played + (All Wins - regulation losses)

Like I said... It's different but also correct way of looking at the standings...

 

[Melvin]

Doesn't matter if you object or not... The simple fact is the current system is set up that you need to Win any way you can and avoid losing in regulation.
Regulation records don't matter.

Only time regulation win totals even matter at all is if teams are tied after 82...
Points = Games played + (All Wins - regulation losses)

Like I said... It's different but also correct way of looking at the standings...

In that perspective then your way of looking at it is wrong too. The OT loss is not a “burn card” as you describe it. It’s a point. It counts as a point in the standings. You can’t have it both ways.

regulation records are the best indication of which teams are actual quality teams and which ones are pretenders heading into the playoffs, where real hockey is played throughout and there’s no pond hockey bullshit.

 

[DL44]

In that perspective then your way of looking at it is wrong too. The OT loss is not a “burn card” as you describe it. It’s a point. It counts as a point in the standings. You can’t have it both ways.

regulation records are the best indication of which teams are actual quality teams and which ones are pretenders heading into the playoffs, where real hockey is played throughout and there’s no pond hockey bullshit.

Regulation record may be a better indication of quality teams... But doesn't matter for the current point system.

In terms of my "burn card" comment.. I explained it the initial post.

 

[geebster]

That's not true.

Montreal was 20-21-15 in regulation. Calgary was 22-27-7, Ottawa 18-28-10 and Vancouver 17-29-10. Montreal was the best team of those 4.

If anything, Montreal got *less* out of losertime because they happened to go a crazy 4-11 in the coin flip. Losing 11 times in the shootout is not some crazy "lucky" thing, it's actually very unlucky. They should have had 4-5 more points than they had, if they'd broke even on shootouts. But they make the playoffs even if OT/SO doesn't exist and all games end in the 3rd.

As someone else alluded to, the most overrated teams are *not* the teams with a lot of "loser points," it's the teams with a lot of loser wins. Like the Canucks with their "Bruce there it is 7-0" stretch which was really like 4 wins and 3 draws but they happened to go 3-0 in OT/SO.

Columbus this season were completely overrated to start the year because they started the season like 7-1 or something in OT, now that that has evened out they've been falling down the standings. They are 13-22-8 in regulation.

EDIT: I just realized I mis-read the standings and actually, Columbus is still 7-1 in OT/SO. That team completely sucks.

Uhhh how does getting 15 loser points not help Montreal make it over Calgary who had more wins? I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. The following two statements are not identical:

- Montreal got a lot of help from loser points (what I said)

- Montreal got a lot of help from losertime (the strawman you are refuting)

They surely got less out of loser time than others did. But had there not been a "loser point" or if "loser points" dont matter, then Calgary makes it over them. Those 8 additional "loser points" are the difference.

I fully believe they deserved to make it, I'm arguing that "loser points" matter, which is what was being contested.

Surely you could argue that with average overtime results they may have more than 2 wins and make up the win gap with Calgary but that's a moot point. Not only is it not what happened (which is what I'm talking about - not a hypothetical), but it isnt relevant at all to a discussion of teams keeping their losses to overtime being important (I.e. the value of what some call "loser points".)

 

[Melvin]

Uhhh how does getting 15 loser points not help Montreal make it over Calgary who had more wins? I think you misread or misunderstood what I wrote. The following two statements are not identical:

- Montreal got a lot of help from loser points (what I said)

- Montreal got a lot of help from losertime (the strawman you are refuting)

They surely got less out of loser time than others did. But had there not been a "loser point" or if "loser points" dont matter, then Calgary makes it over them. Those 8 additional "loser points" are the difference.

I fully believe they deserved to make it, I'm arguing that "loser points" matter, which is what was being contested.

Surely you could argue that with average overtime results they may have more than 2 wins and make up the win gap with Calgary but that's a moot point. Not only is it not what happened (which is what I'm talking about - not a hypothetical), but it isnt relevant at all to a discussion of teams keeping their losses to overtime being important (I.e. the value of what some call "loser points".)

Yeah, I did misunderstand what you were saying. Mea culpa.

My point is just "they only made the playoffs because they had 11 loser points" sort of makes it sound like they were a worse team than their record indicated. My point is that they were a better team than their record indicated, because they essentially had 15 draws but only got 4 "bonus points" out of those draws. They effectively had 3-4 fewer points than they "should have" had if they had had reasonable shootout results. I realize now though that this was not what you were arguing.