GDT: Gm 22: St. Louis Blues @ Boston Bruins |11/21/13|7P ET|NESN, NHLN-US, RDS|98.5 FM

[EverettMike]

I didn't really mind it either. I was a bit surprised to see him out there, but it's not like Clode picks his shooters based on point totals. An argument could be made for choosing Yeti over Kelly, but I don't think much about it either way.

I figure most of those shootout decisions are based on talent + recent practice performance, and since I am not at practice (minus once this year) I give the coach the benefit of the doubt.

I kinda had more of a problem choosing Iginla. I feel like he is way more predictable.

 

[Minny Shinny]

FYI, I'll have the Carolina GDT up in a couple hours.

 

[Artemis]

I figure most of those shootout decisions are based on talent + recent practice performance, and since I am not at practice (minus once this year) I give the coach the benefit of the doubt.

I kinda had more of a problem choosing Iginla. I feel like he is way more predictable.

Saw a comment recently from Springfield Falcons coach Brad Larsen that he had a professor at SLU who did a study on shootouts and determined that they were basically crapshoots.

Personally, I'd stay with the five-minute, four-man OT, and if nobody scores, it's a tie.

 

[qc]

Saw a comment recently from Springfield Falcons coach Brad Larsen that he had a professor at SLU who did a study on shootouts and determined that they were basically crapshoots.

At the very least, they should rename them to "crapshoot-outs."

...

:crickets:

 

[EverettMike]

Saw a comment recently from Springfield Falcons coach Brad Larsen that he had a professor at SLU who did a study on shootouts and determined that they were basically crapshoots.

Personally, I'd stay with the five-minute, four-man OT, and if nobody scores, it's a tie.

I've been begging for years for them to go to 8 minute OTs. I'd say 10, but I don't know if the ice would hold up that long.

I dislike the 3-3 idea almost as much as the shootout. But I guess (ugh) it would be better.

The NHL really just needs to go to 3 point games.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Personally, I'd stay with the five-minute, four-man OT, and if nobody scores, it's a tie.

I would, too. And if there is no winner, no points get awarded.

Couple that with no points for a loss in OT and you introduce massive incentive to win, either in regulation or OT.

 

[ksp1957]

I figure most of those shootout decisions are based on talent + recent practice performance, and since I am not at practice (minus once this year) I give the coach the benefit of the doubt.

I kinda had more of a problem choosing Iginla. I feel like he is way more predictable.

I had hoped to see Yeti out there instead of Kelly. I'm convinced that Claude chooses his shooters for the shootout by Rock, Paper, Scissors.

 

[AlpineLager]

Thought the Bruins had one of their best games all season. Really does suck seeing a game like that end in a shootout.
Miller looked real good. For a guy who many classify as a stay at home, he's got wheels and a great first pass. Plays tough as nails too.

Is it me, or has Iginla looked brutal lately?

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

...

I had to miss this game due to work. From the sounds of it, it was a good one.

Happy I snagged myself some GameCentre and can go back and view it in its entirety.

 

[KuralySnipes]

It sucks such a good game ended with a skills competition to come up with final outcome.

 

[bruins repeat time]

I actually like shoot outs even though the bruins are not very good at them. My favorite thing in the world is playoff overtime but the facts are if you want to break a regular season tie there isn't a better way in my mind. I don't think the players association is going to let them add time but lets face it 4 on 4 , 3 on 3 or even less players isn't a true way to decide a game either. I really don't care if they go back to ties I am fine with that as well. I just get a kick out of guys that think 3 on 3 would be any more legit than the talent show we currently have. The world championships is the one that should be looking at shoot outs. They choose to decide games that way after a five or ten minute overtime when they should obviously go nhl style playoff overtime.

 

[DominicT]

Always been an advocate of 3-2-1 point system

Regulation win = 3 points
OT/SO win = 2 points
OT/SO loss = 1 point
regulation loss = 0 points

Too many Western Conference teams in 3 point games.

How would it effect the standings today?

Here you go (hope it works for you) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anhf0akZmu64dEZtQzNZV3N3ZmstSmJibFRLTGhaS2c#gid=0

 

[bruins repeat time]

Always been an advocate of 3-2-1 point system

Regulation win = 3 points
OT/SO win = 2 points
OT/SO loss = 1 point
regulation loss = 0 points

Too many Western Conference teams in 3 point games.

How would it effect the standings today?

Here you go (hope it works for you) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anhf0akZmu64dEZtQzNZV3N3ZmstSmJibFRLTGhaS2c#gid=0

I wouldn't mind this either.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

I've been begging for years for them to go to 8 minute OTs. I'd say 10, but I don't know if the ice would hold up that long.

I dislike the 3-3 idea almost as much as the shootout. But I guess (ugh) it would be better.

The NHL really just needs to go to 3 point games.

3 point games are so much better than rewarding points to a losing team. And if you go to 3 points it makes the fact a team can lose and get a point less of a problem.

When teams are battling for the 8th spot in the playoffs I swear every game goes to OT.

3 on 3 sudden death would be cool. Its no extra wear and tear and fatigue on the players since only 1/6 skaters can be on the ice at any time. The shootout is like the MLB having a home run derby if the games tied after 10 innings.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Always been an advocate of 3-2-1 point system

Don't you find it a little odd, though, that this is the only US national sport that awards points for ties? Why would the sport advocate for that?

I used to agree that a 3-2-1 award system was worthwhile, but I have since rethought and abandoned the idea. I much prefer the winner take all approach: you win you get 2, you lose you get nothing. Lately, I'm even thinking more along the lines of a tie is not a win and you get nothing. That provides incentive to win over incentive to tie.

Actually, under such a plan the 2 pts becomes a bit of an anachronism; you win you get 1, you lose or tie you get none. What's wrong with that?

 

[bruins repeat time]

3 point games are so much better than rewarding points to a losing team. And if you go to 3 points it makes the fact a team can lose and get a point less of a problem.

When teams are battling for the 8th spot in the playoffs I swear every game goes to OT.

3 on 3 sudden death would be cool. Its no extra wear and tear and fatigue on the players since only 1/6 skaters can be on the ice at any time. The shootout is like the MLB having a home run derby if the games tied after 10 innings.

The 3 on 3 part would be like mlb taking the 3 outfielders and the shortstop off the field before extra innings.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Don't you find it a little odd, though, that this is the only US national sport that awards points for ties? Why would the sport advocate for that?

I used to agree that a 3-2-1 award system was worthwhile, but I have since rethought and abandoned the idea. I much prefer the winner take all approach: you win you get 2, you lose you get nothing. Lately, I'm even thinking more along the lines of a tie is not a win and you get nothing. That provides incentive to win over incentive to tie.

Actually, under such a plan the 2 pts becomes a bit of an anachronism; you win you get 1, you lose or tie you get none. What's wrong with that?

Ties count in the NFL.

 

[DominicT]

Don't you find it a little odd, though, that this is the only US national sport that awards points for ties? Why would the sport advocate for that?

I used to agree that a 3-2-1 award system was worthwhile, but I have since rethought and abandoned the idea. I much prefer the winner take all approach: you win you get 2, you lose you get nothing. Lately, I'm even thinking more along the lines of a tie is not a win and you get nothing. That provides incentive to win over incentive to tie.

Actually, under such a plan the 2 pts becomes a bit of an anachronism; you win you get 1, you lose or tie you get none. What's wrong with that?

And you may be right Reggie

I just go way back to when there were ties and no overtime in the regular season and felt then it should have been a 3-2-1 point system. Haven't really reconsidered it.

But the game, prior to OT even, had ties and I was ok with that. They then add overtime for the bonus point, you still got your regulation time tie point. I was okay with that too because it was a true bonus point. But when you add the shootout now after overtime, it really is a loser point and not a bonus point.

As I've argued before, the NHL basically admits to it by valueing an overtime win more than a shootout win by using regulation and overtime wins as a tie breaker in the standings. Shouldn't a regulation win be worth more?

I argued with Sportsnet yesterday on their recent article about how the West dominates the Eastern Conference. Well that's just bull crap. The West dominates the Metropolitan Division. The Atlantic is about .500 vs the west and thats with Florida and Buffalo in the division.

Then their argument turns to the standings and how 8 Western Conference teams are ahead of the Bruins who are tops in the East. My argument then was that there are many more Western Conference teams in 3 point games then the East.

I guess your system would work too. Under that 1st place Chicago would be 15 and 8 for 30 points and Boston 14 and 8 for 28 points. Detroit would be 10 and 13 for 20 points so it seems fair.

I guess I am just old school that if you played the game for 60 minutes and were tied like it had been for 70+ years, you deserved something for it. But I am open to your idea, because the current one is, and has always been wrong

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

The NHL likes the "loser point" because it makes weaker teams point totals look better. A team can lose 82 games in OT and still be considered a .500 team.

 

[ReggieMoto]

Ties count in the NFL.

Yes, apparently they can exist, although it seems it is rare.

From Wikipedia:

Tie games were once frequent in the NFL, but have become increasingly uncommon due to a rule change in 1974 that extended the existing sudden-death overtime for post-season games into the regular season. Only six ties have occurred since the 1989 season, a statistic that has been attributed to the increasing accuracy of kickers.

Unlike in association football (soccer), where teams routinely play for ties due to the benefit of a point in the standings, NFL teams never play for ties; the sudden-death overtime system does not provide for an easy way to finish in a tie. Instead, ties are almost always the result of mishaps or mistakes from the teams involved. Tied games are considered to be the least desired outcome a football game can produce, in part due to an American cultural aversion to ties. Due to the rarity of tied games, some players (such as former Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb) that have participated in one have recounted that they did not think a tie was a possible result for an NFL game.

So, while true that ties can and do occasionally happen, this is not the norm and the teams (and the league) attempt to avoid them at all costs, apparently because of the "American cultural aversion to ties." Hmmm....perhaps this is something the NHL isn't aware of.

 

[ORRMAN]

I think we outplayed St Louis, and I'm very happy with that. Considering we should have gotten zero points out of the NYR game, I can live with the results.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

And you may be right Reggie

I just go way back to when there were ties and no overtime in the regular season and felt then it should have been a 3-2-1 point system. Haven't really reconsidered it.

But the game, prior to OT even, had ties and I was ok with that. They then add overtime for the bonus point, you still got your regulation time tie point. I was okay with that too because it was a true bonus point. But when you add the shootout now after overtime, it really is a loser point and not a bonus point.

As I've argued before, the NHL basically admits to it by valueing an overtime win more than a shootout win by using regulation and overtime wins as a tie breaker in the standings. Shouldn't a regulation win be worth more?

I argued with Sportsnet yesterday on their recent article about how the West dominates the Eastern Conference. Well that's just bull crap. The West dominates the Metropolitan Division. The Atlantic is about .500 vs the west and thats with Florida and Buffalo in the division.

Then their argument turns to the standings and how 8 Western Conference teams are ahead of the Bruins who are tops in the East. My argument then was that there are many more Western Conference teams in 3 point games then the East.

I guess your system would work too. Under that 1st place Chicago would be 15 and 8 for 30 points and Boston 14 and 8 for 28 points. Detroit would be 10 and 13 for 20 points so it seems fair.

I guess I am just old school that if you played the game for 60 minutes and were tied like it had been for 70+ years, you deserved something for it. But I am open to your idea, because the current one is, and has always been wrong

It makes absolutely no sense that the Nhl has no idea how many points will be awarded during the season. Each and every game should have the amount of points distributed.

I don't like the fact that a team that wins in a shootout gets the same amount of points as a team that wins in regulation. I hate the fact that a team that loses 82 games in shootouts finishes higher in the standing than a team that finishes the year with 40 wins and 1 OT lose (40-41-1)

Again, the whole purpose of giving out this "loser"points is so that weaker team can stay in contention for a playoff spot a little longer.

Maybe it is better for the growth of the game,but it is not a better game.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, apparently they can exist, although it seems it is rare.

From Wikipedia:


So, while true that ties can and do occasionally happen, this is not the norm and the teams (and the league) attempt to avoid them at all costs, apparently because of the "American cultural aversion to ties." Hmmm....perhaps this is something the NHL isn't aware of.

Come on...the NHL knows everything!

 

[BigBadBruin8]

Always been an advocate of 3-2-1 point system

Regulation win = 3 points
OT/SO win = 2 points
OT/SO loss = 1 point
regulation loss = 0 points

Too many Western Conference teams in 3 point games.

How would it effect the standings today?

Here you go (hope it works for you) https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Anhf0akZmu64dEZtQzNZV3N3ZmstSmJibFRLTGhaS2c#gid=0

Always wanted this. Makes so much sense to me. Especially if the league goes to 10 minute OT, which also needs to happen ASAP.

 

[Dellstrom]

I think we outplayed St Louis, and I'm very happy with that. Considering we should have gotten zero points out of the NYR game, I can live with the results.

Yep. No shootouts in the playoffs.