Wins, Losses and Equality
by BobPurkey34 on Jul 23, 2010 9:04 PM EDT
Email
PrintApologies for stealing your title, GoPens!...or maybe it's more like borrowing without permission? Your analysis of the point system had me thinking a similar, yet different way. Instead of players, what if the NHL used a different point system for teams?
I think everyone would probably agree that the point system is somewhat flawed. In no other sport do you get points for losing while wins in the NHL simply aren't really what they should be. Much has been made about possibly tweaking and/or modifying the current one. Others say that the scoring system is fine where it is.
But what if the NHL was to use an Olympic/KHL point system - three points for a regulation win, two points for a win in overtime or a shootout, normal one point for OT/SO loss and of course, no points for a loss in regulation. If there's one thing this system accomplishes, it's inflating the number of points each year to the point where nearly every team in the league reaches triple digits.
Although it would inflate point values, it may also help the league. Regulation wins where a team proves over the course of 60 minutes that it deserves to win, should be rewarded and 3 PTS would do nicely. For teams that go to overtime or a shootout, it's clear that on that particular night, the teams are evenly matched and it'd be appropriate the difference is only one - like it is now. Obviously, losing in regulation shouldn't be worth anything.
Let's see an example.
Last year, the Atlantic Division and Eastern Conference playoff race came down to the final day. Actually, the final shot. If the NHL used an Olympic point system, would that be any different?
GP WR WO LO LR PTS*
1New Jersey 82 40 7 8 27 143
2Pittsburgh 82 33 14 7 28 134
3Philadelphia 82 35 6 6 35 123
4NY Rangers 82 34 4 11 33 121
5NY Islanders 82 20 14 11 37 99
*Updated points
As you can see, the Division standings would look absolutely no different. The Devils still win the Atlantic, the Penguins still finish 2nd and the Flyers still prevail over the Rangers by the smallest of margins. What good is that? Instead, let's take a look at what the updated conference standings would look like.
- *Washington - 164 points
- *New Jersey - 143 points
- *Buffalo - 135 points
- Pittsburgh - 134 points
- Ottawa - 128 points
- Philadelphia - 123 points
- NY Rangers - 121 points
- Boston - 116 points
It's safe to say, that looks a bit different. The division winners all remain the same and the Penguins still meet the Senators, but Montreal would have missed the playoffs, the Rangers would be in and facing the Devils, and Boston would have the honor of playing the spoiling 8th seed.
This is simple to explain however. The Rangers won ten more games in regulation (34-24) than the Canadiens while Montreal led the Eastern Conference in wins needing overtime or a shootout to decide (with 15).
To say the absolute least, this would have significantly impacted the playoffs last year. But would it have been for the better? Is it a good idea to award more points for a regulation win over an overtime/shootout win?
The content expressed in fanposts does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff here at Pensburgh.com. FanPosts are opinions expressed by fans of various teams throughout the league but may be more Pittsburgh-centric for obvious reasons.
68 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd love to have less columns.
Wins and losses and that’s it. You lose in OT or a shootout, too damn bad.
I hate the idea of switching to Olympic system
I tend to agree with Schide’s comment above. If anything is to change, make it simpler. Some people have a problem with teams even getting a point for a loss, and I can understand that, but at least with the current system those extra points made no difference in who made the playoffs this past season. The top 8 teams by wins in each conference made it to the postseason.
If I had more energy, I’d post a link to the Japers’ Rink discussion on this topic from a couple of months ago. There were some good points made on both sides. I even proposed an even more ridiculous system. If regulation wins are to be more valuable than overtime wins, than shouldn’t regular overtime decisions be more valuable than shootout-gimmick overtime decisions? Make it a 5-points per game system:
Points awarded:
5 – regulation win
4 – overtime period win
3 – shootout win
2 – shootout loss
1 – overtime period loss
0 – regulation loss
I’m joking of course, though I would prefer this to the Olympic system.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 24, 2010 12:36 AM EDT reply actions
How is that mess any improvement over anything? Winning a regular season game is as much luck as it is in that crapshootout. You get a powerplay, it’s over. I’d admit the most likely system is probably a 3 points for win, 1 point for OTL system, but that mess would be absolutely awful to sort out.
Also, why is the Olympic system that much more complicated? First, it’s already been used around the world effectively. Second, the NHL used to have 4 scoring categories. Granted that didn’t work so well but where is the Olympic system so flawed?
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
How is that mess any improvement over anything?
I think it is an improvement over the Olympic system. I say a win is a win is a win, but if we are to adopt a system where some wins are better than others (regulation vs overtime), then why should all overtime wins be treated equally (5-minute overtime win vs shootout)?
Hopefully you read my entire comment where I indicated that I was joking about the 5-point system.
At least a power play is a legitimate part of the game and not a gimmick.
Winning a regular season game is as much luck as it is in that crapshootout. You get a powerplay, it’s over.
I don’t think I said that it is.
Also, why is the Olympic system that much more complicated?
You said it, 4 scoring categories. It isn’t really my goal, but it does seem to be the goal of the league to become more widely accepted. I don’t think you accomplish that by making your points system any more strange than it already is. I can imagine Joe Newfan asking his buddy what’s the Pens’ record, and the response is “oh, they’re 15-12-11-5”. Huh?
Second, the NHL used to have 4 scoring categories. Granted that didn’t work so well but where is the Olympic system so flawed?
…………………….
Maybe one of the better arguments in favor of this system would be that teams might try harder to win in regulation. Is that really true? Coming down to the end of the game, coaches would still be thinking about that guaranteed 1 point they’d get for making it to overtime. I think it is only in very specific situations where a team really needs those 3 points that they’d gamble a bit more in regulation.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 24, 2010 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think an OTL should count for anything in any system, but that’s just my two cents. I mean, we saw just how close the division and conference was last season. I don’t think a team should skim by or be ruled out because they recorded one more LOSS than another team or failed to get that extra LOSS than another team.
I mean…you lost. It shouldn’t count for anything. I really hate the idea of a compensation point just because a team went to OT.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.
so, in Frank’s system…2 points for a win (OT or regulation), 1 point for a shootout win, and 0 points for losses of any kind.
is that right?
that sounds pretty good.
I don’t know. It would hurt a lot more than normal to see the Pens fight hard to a draw after 60 minutes, only to see them get no points after losing in OT.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
I guess it’s just that much more initiative to try and win. But that’s where I like the Olympic system. You can lose in the gimmick shootout and still get your point, but also know that the other team doesn’t get max points. Winning games in a shootout is more luck than skill and shouldn’t be rewarded like a normal win.
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
Winning games in a shootout is more luck than skill and shouldn’t be rewarded like a normal win.
Right. In what I dubbed “Frank’s System” its not (rewarded like a normal win) either—rather, a LOSS doesn’t count for anything—which just feels right to me.
It also places more distance b/w a REAL win a gimmicky win: 2 vs. 1 is 100% more
whereas in the Olympic system its 3 vs. 2 which is only 50% more
I haven’t thought much about this. I figure, over the course of a season, the best teams will win no matter the format. Originally, I voted in favor of BP34’s proposal. But this seems even better.
I’m confused how you got the 1 point for a shootout win idea from Frank’s comment.
I’ll be totally honest. As long as we have the God of Shootouts on our squad, I’m not in favor of devaluing the shootout victory anytime soon.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 24, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
PAYD, I didn’t. Again, I’m not studying this, just commenting as it evolves.
Frank only seemed to say that a loss, ANY loss, should count for ZERO.
I’m down w/ that.
I took that one step further—given how much most hockey purists despise the SO—to knock a SO “win” down to 1 point. Really, if you can’t beat the team in regulation OR the overtime period, c’mon.
The better approach in these instances—instead of rewarding the LOSERS—is to detract a bit from the “winners.”
They did NOT win a hockey game after all—just a skills competition that’s a gimmicky adjunct to the real game.
I don’t know about the shootout being only one point. I mean, a win is still a win, just like a loss is still a loss, right? So in all honesty, I think a shootout win should still count for two points and a shootout loss would, in turn, count for nothing.
I mean, I can totally see what Diomedes is saying and I can see myself getting behind that to some degree, but I also feel a team should be coming out of a game with at least two points for a win. Otherwise one point still defeats the purpose of what I’m trying to avoid with the OTL or SOL point.
Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.
Kris Letang maybe?
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
ya dum dums…. it’s Fleury! ;)
Is it October yet?
Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.
Of course
should’ve known =D
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
by PensFan8725 on Jul 26, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m in the soccer school of thought in this case.
Win – 3Pts
Draw – 1 Pt
A win’s a win’s a win. Be it in OT or in regulation. What I do want to eliminate is the shootout. The shootout’s gimmicky & useless in the regular season… Although if you forget about the 3 points per win (which I do want to see), we should just stick to the Olympic format. A little consistency between competitions might be fun to see once in a while.
Is it October yet?
Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.
I like the soccer scoring.
But as I don’t think they’re going to get rid of the shootout and bring back ties any time soon, so that system is pretty much out. To me, the Olympic system is most fair. Teams who might not be as talented look at it different. If it’s tied in the 3rd period, a more talented squad like the Pens, Caps, Sharks, whoever, will go for the win while other teams will simply play for OT and the shootout to get points. So no, teams who win in a shootout shouldn’t be given the same amount of points.
Let’s be honest, the Olympics use the system for a reason, they obviously see a lot of value in it and want to reward teams that go for wins in regulation. Which makes perfect sense. Then if you go to OT or a shootout, whether you win or lose, you’ll get points, but no way should a crapshoot win earn the same points as an outright win.
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
If the Olympics were so wise and pure, they would never allow a gold medal to be won in a shootout.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 24, 2010 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree there, but, other than that, their system is solid.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
While it may be solid for a tournament format, is it necessarily the right thing to apply to a full 82-game season?
I stand by my belief that new fans will be turned off by this. They want to know where their team is in the standings and what it will take to catch the teams in front of them. Having overtime losses in the mix is bad enough. They don’t want to hear about regulation wins versus overtime wins.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 25, 2010 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Ehh I think that’s sort of irrelevant.
If the NHL explains it well enough, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with it.
Plus, it sort of takes away the luster of the shootout like I explain below:
I like the Olympic format because it sort patches up the whole "gimmick" part of the shootout. Sure, as long as it exists, it’s still a gimmick, but by only giving out 2 points to the winner (instead of 3 in a reg. win) it makes it a little more bearable, no?
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
that’s sort of irrelevant.
Funny, you could say that about hockey in the landscape of American sports. We might as well support changes like this that will keep it that way.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 25, 2010 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The shootout
If there is a part of the game that is so undeserving that we would consider taking a point away for a win, then wouldn’t the right answer be to eliminate that part of the game rather than altering the scoring to accommodate it?
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 25, 2010 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
True, but by taking away the shootout, you’re also taking away the thing that attracts new hockey fans to the sport. I think I’d support having no points for a loss before I ever support ties.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
Plus, if the league ever went back to the 20 minute period, then a tie scenario, that would bring about unfair advantages.
Say two teams play, not against each other one, but are going to play the next night. Team A plays their game and wins in regulation. Team B plays 60 minutes for a draw and then 20 minutes only to tie. Obviously, Team A has an advantage over Team B before the Team A and B even face each other the next day.
So, in a way, that’s why I like the shootout. At the most, two teams that played separate teams the night before have a disadvantage of playing 5 extra minutes and a shootout.
Plus, like you said, the Pens are pretty good at shootouts. “God of Shootouts,” I believe.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
I’m not sure that the NHL has ever played a 20-minute overtime in the regular season. I know they started the 5-minute period in the early 80s. Prior to that, at least for some time, I think the games ended in a tie after 3 periods. I did find a reference to the league using a 10-minute period back in the 40s or so. Anyway, I agree a 20-minute OT period in the regular season would be bad. I just don’t see how an overtime win is any less worthy than a regulation win. Any hockey historians out there, or someone better at researching the history (not counting Wikipedia), please correct me if I’m wrong.
Can you help me understand not so much why you want to change the system, but what you hope will be accomplished by doing so? I understand that in theory you seem to feel that winning in overtime is not as good as winning in regulation, but at the end of the day (as my bosses like to say) what do you hope will be the net outcome?
Would you prefer, as would have been the case this year, for the Rangers to make the playoffs instead of the Habs? The obvious answer is yes, keep Montreal out, but that’s in hindsight. Forget that they eliminated the Pens. Do you feel that the Rangers were any more deserving of making the playoffs than Montreal?
The way I see it, a change such as this, which appears as though it would have only a minor impact to the standings, will only really affect the last few teams to make the playoffs. Yes, it might affect positioning of some higher seeds, but that isn’t a big deal. I guess I don’t see a need to make a rule change that is only going to make the difference between which crappy team gets the 7/8 seed and which other crappy team misses the playoffs.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 25, 2010 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure why I care so much about this. I’m not big on change, I guess.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 25, 2010 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
As I’ve said before I like the change because it sort of takes away some of the “gimmick” part of the shootout.
As for why a regulation win is better than an overtime win, I think the teams that play well enough to beat a team in 60 minutes instead of in OT or a shootout deserve to be in the playoffs over those who only play well enough to force a tie after 60 min.
And really they only played 10 minutes of OT? I remember 20….Oh well, I was still mostly watching minor league hockey before the lockout.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
by PensFan8725 on Jul 25, 2010 11:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure how old you are, but my guess is that during your lifetime (or at least your hockey watching lifetime), the overtime has always been 5 minutes during the regular season, as that was instituted sometime in the 83-84 timeframe.
If a regulation win is more deserving than an overtime win, then is a 2-goal victory better than a 1-goal victory? How about a team that wins 7-2, isn’t that better than a team that wins 2-1? How about a road win vs a home win? Let’s say a team gets the game winning goal with 8 seconds left in regulation. Is that really worth 1 point more in the standings than a team that wins 8 seconds into overtime?
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 12:23 AM EDT up reply actions
The answer to all of your questions: yes.
A team that plays well enough to win in 60 minutes deserves one more point than a team that takes longer.
I realize that you’re saying that by using this system, one is trying to give points out for the quality of a win, but that’s not the way I see it. The Olympic system keeps it simple enough so that you stay out of actually giving points out for quality. I know that may not make sense, but each type of win is quantified even it is ranked by quality. Although, it is general enough that you don’t have some of the questions that you asked above…see what I mean?
The way I see it is that this system takes the luster off the shootout by giving out one less point to the winner of a breakaway contest, over the winner of a team effort, 60 minute win. It’s not like the Olympic system is something that we at Pensburgh came up with in that there’s a reason that it’s used. I think it works very well.
Oh and as for how old I am….I was born after 83-84, but have only been watching the NHL for the past 6 or so years (maybe a little longer). The minor leagues that my local professional team is with changes it’s rules every year and one year, before the lockout, they had 20 min. over time periods so maybe that’s what this is coming from. After the lockout, they went with the NHL and changed to a 5 min OT and a 5 man (not 3) shootout, which also takes some of the gimmick out of the shootout.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
the thing that attracts hockey fans to the sport….
Obviously, it’s not the only thing, but you know what I mean.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
Maybe they make changes before 2014?
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
What I do want to eliminate is the shootout.
No way, dude. Yes, it’s a gimmick, but that doesn’t necessarily make it bad. I’ve watched and attended ties and shootouts there is no question in my mind at least which one the fans preferred. Now, I’m not saying that all rules should be based on fan preference, but in a long and sometimes tedious 82-game season, you do have to give some consideration to fan satisfaction, and ties just plain suck. What I dislike about the NHL shootout is that they only use 3 shooters per team (unless it is tied, of course). I prefer the 5 shooter format used in some lower leagues. And this is one time where I would go with the Olympic rules and if it is still tied after the allotted number of shooters (3 or 5), I’d let teams send up whoever they want.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 24, 2010 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions
This is exactly my feeling. I literally would have typed that paragraph word for word.
Hockey Blogger at Pensburgh.com
i agree. ties suck and the gimmick is good for the sport.
just don’t treat it the same as a REAL win in the standings.
Then only award two points for a SO win and 3 points for a regulation win….1 pt for OT/SO losers.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
Which is the Olympic system in exact. Shootouts, OK fine, I think we can all agree. A lot of people don’t like it and that it decides games, but the NHL won’t get rid of it. So if we used an Olympic system instead, winning in a shootout wouldn’t be as good as a regulation win. That’s fair.
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
Totally fair. You’d also be bound to see teams want to win in regulation more. Thus, making the game more exciting and competitive.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
I’d let teams send up whoever they want.
How exciting would it be to see Sid and Ovechkin go at it for the Pens/Caps in the Winter Classic. I know it’s just a regular season game, but it’s sure be exciting and the NHL would be bound to milk it for years.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
I like the 5-shooter format better too. There’s just something about 3 shooters that makes it lucky. 5 shooters is a little less luck and a little more skill. You’re less likely to be lucky in a best of 5 than a best of 3. But I don’t agree with using the same shooter in the same shootout at any time.
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
I like the Olympic format
because it sort patches up the whole “gimmick” part of the shootout. Sure, as long as it exists, it’s still a gimmick, but by only giving out 2 points to the winner (instead of 3 in a reg. win) it makes it a little more bearable, no?
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
Exactly. It takes weighting off the shootout. Right now, a team that utterly dominates and wins a game something outrageous like 7-2 – gets the same amount of points as one that wins after sitting back in the 3rd to protect a score just to get to OT. That makes no sense.
Sure there will be some off-nights during the season. Every team has them, where you feel happy getting to OT just to earn a point. The shootout allows teams who “don’t deserve” to win on a given night earn normal points. OK fine, that’s a nice opportunity. But teams who DO deserve to win, be rewarded likewise.
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
Ideally...
Ideally…They’d shorten the damn season
Play one 20-min full OT — sudden death format
You’d very, very, very rarely have ties (like in the NFL now)
That, of course, will NEVER happen
b/c they want the revenue from the longer season
Football used to be great in this regard b/c the season was only 14 games
Then they went to 16, w/ a bye week, to get 17 weeks of (regular season) revenue generation
Now they are talking about adding 1 or 2 more weeks
Bodies don’t hold up that long
And the individual games lose importance
Seems that money really is the root of all evil sometimes.
Ideally…They’d shorten the damn season
What are you, a commie? Don’t take my hockey away. I’m still pissed they didn’t stick with the 84-game format that they tried back in the early 90s.
14-game seasons in the NFL? What are you, 80 years old? I’m old apparently by hockey-blog standards, and I don’t remember 14-game seasons. I mean, I watched some games in the 70s, but I didn’t care how many games were in a season back then. And I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that if they expand the regular season further, they will shorten the preseason by the same number of games. Not saying I’m in favor of it, but I think they could get by with fewer preseason games.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m really young, but the Dolphin’s had a perfect 14 game regular season in 1972, so sometime in there, the must’ve gone to 16 games.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
1978
was the first season that the NFL played a 16 game regular season.
So when's October you ask? Well, here's your answer.
Thanks :-)
It was meant to be a very tongue in cheek reply to Diomedes and the suggestion that things were so great in the NFL when they played 14 games vs 16. This kind of ignores league expansion. Playing 14 games in a 32-team league would be a little odd, I think. Also it implied that the move to 16 games automatically came with a bye week when really the bye week came much later. I do agree that the bye week stinks, but I think when it was first instituted, they didn’t have an even number of teams so it was necessary. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the league loves it and has kept the bye week around because of the additional revenue.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 8:38 AM EDT up reply actions
its all about the $$$.
i like hockey as much as anyone, but 82 games + possibly 20+ more = just too many.
look at the Penguins…everyone says they were just “tired.”
guys in their physical primes, highly conditioned athletes, and even they got burnt out.
in the NFL injuries are a growing problem w/ expansion of the schedule (+ guys being bigger/faster than ever) now its impossible to have both your starting RB and QB make it through a season w/o spending serious time out of commission. other players too. its become a war of attrition and corresponding its become LESS about skill and strategy. esp. when you are pushing 20 games in the playoffs. greed drives the whole thing. the fans get a diminished product.
look at the Penguins…everyone says they were just "tired."
guys in their physical primes, highly conditioned athletes, and even they got burnt out.
This is a lame excuse for losing. The only significant difference in the schedule over the last 30 years is that they only played 80 games back in the 80s and the 1st round of the playoffs was best of 5. If, in fact, the Pens were “burnt out”, I’d say it was more mental than physical, and the mental fatigue, in my opinion, would be no less if the season was 76 games instead of 82.
In the NFL, again, there has been no significant expansion of the schedule. It’s a physical game and there have always been injuries, but it seems that it is only since the explosion in popularity of fantasy football that it has suddenly become an issue. If the game has become any less about skill and strategy, I’d blame that more on free agency and the inability to keep a cohesive unit together for more than a few years at a time.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
agree on hockey. lame excuse. and difference 76 games vs. 82 games is insignificant.
in the NFL, however, i think the jump from 14 games to 16 IS significant. That’s almost a 15% increase. And they want to increase it MORE. Its a rare game that at least one player does NOT suffer a significant injury. And RBs are esp. vulnerable. It matters if, say, the Vikings are starting Adrian Peterson or…his rookie backup OR if the Jaguars are starting Maurice Jones-Drew or…who? I can’t even name his backup. It TOTALLY changes the game.
The bigger issue, personally, is that BEFORE it was that EVERY game mattered.
If they go to 18 games, it’ll be like, well that’s a game out of the division in September or October or even November, so who really cares.
in the NFL, however, i think the jump from 14 games to 16 IS significant. That’s almost a 15% increase.
Yes, in 78 they increased to 16 games, but between 66 and 76 the league expanded by 4 teams, a 17% increase. If the league expands and the schedule is not increased, then a team’s opponents for the season become a less representative sample of the league as a whole, and in that way 14 games would be less meaningful than 16. Since 76, the league has grown by another 4 teams, a 14% increase. An additional 2 games (13% increase) in the schedule does not seem unreasonable to me, especially if they are offset by having 2 fewer preseason games.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
then a team’s opponents for the season become a less representative sample of the league as a whole
aha! i didn’t know that’s what you were driving at.
does that really matter?
as long as a team plays each divisional rival 2x, that’s really all i care about.
they can sort out the rest in the playoffs.
and really, the non-division games aren’t very “representative” even now—its random, rotating thru divisions, by year.
I wouldn’t say that’s what I was “driving at”. My only real point was that I didn’t think the increase in games was all that large.
And rotating through divisions (which only happens for non-conference games) isn’t random.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
well, when its already a war of attrition
then you add more games…that’s a problem
in hockey it would be analogous to the playoffs, which is when hockey becomes more of a war of attrition…then adding an additional round…i.e.,brutal.
fwiw, i like the way the NFL puts its sked together
i just think the season is unnecessarily long
50% of the sked is intra-divisional play — w/c is excellent
the other games — much less so.
whether they play 6 or 8 games out of the division is irrelevant.
right now they play 8. 4 are out of conference w/in the same, one division. there is a system to selecting that division, but its random FOR THAT YEAR — which is really all that matters. who cares about next year, now?
which leaves a paltry 4 games. they are NOT random, but rather based off of where teams placed in last season’s standings.
i just don’t see the great advantage in playing 4 of these games instead of 3.
we’re splitting hairs though now. sorry, PAYD! about the NFL, no less. when hockey is VASTLY superiour.
42 days til puck drop!
watch it, PAYD
What are you, a commie?
Haven’t you heard about Paul Bissonette’s experience with using such non-PC terminology?
Here’s the Wednesday Tweet that eventually led to the deactivation of his Twitter account:
"kovalchuk’s gana have to give lap dances for 20 years instead of getting them now that he got rejected.
sorry communist. back to the soviet."
Be careful, man. Both you and Paul B are threats to the State, and besides, you might, you know, hurt someone’s feelings.
Ultimately, you could end up being censored…silenced.
You can't keep me down!
Some of my best friends are commies. Who could forget Kramer as the commie-Santa:
.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Awesome.
Paraphrasing Steve Martin, “Comedy isn’t always pretty,” but let’s let people speak freely.
A sentiment that could certainly apply to Michael Richards as well.
by PensAreYourDaddy on Jul 26, 2010 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree with the idea of games being more important in a shortened season but I’d never want to shorten a season ever… I’m getting withdrawal symptoms now and it’s not fun at all… If I had my way, we’d get hockey all year round…
Is it October yet?
Just so I never have to answer this again. I'm from Singapore so whenever you see me online, I'm either sleep deprived or just waking up.
I’m all for the 82 game schedule.
The only thing I wish the NHL would do to help players out, is allow more players on the full time roster We all understand injuries are inevitable and will happen, but why should NHL teams carry the bare minimum players for a game? No other sport does that. Do football teams dress 24 players for a game? Do basketball teams dress 5? Etc, etc.
They NHL should allow teams to have 21 skaters available each night. If someone is playing poorly, substitute him out for a bench player. If a player gets hurt early in the game and can’t continue, why should that punish the team? Again, use a substitute and keep the game going. I can’t name how many games I’ve seen significantly altered just because a team lost a defenseman in the first period, then paid for it the rest of the game because they’ve only got 5 left.
Give each team 2 subs per game. Once you substitute someone, they can’t come back into the game. I think this is fair, makes the game better and doesn’t really take anything away from the flow. The coach would just decide to make a substitution either during a timeout, TV break, or intermission. Plus, teams can already sub out the goalie, why not skaters as well?
There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball - unfortunately, neither of them work.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Headlines: Rick Nash details emerge; Boychuk’s new deal; Wings go for record
- Canadian university students create ‘Jennifer’ the hockey-playing robot
- How the Columbus Blue Jackets suddenly made Rick Nash trade bait
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Rick Nash on the block; fixing Caps; Flames voice Peter Maher
- Phil Kessel’s NHL peers find him easy to intimidate, according to survey
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Shouting match erupts at Habs practice, pitting assistant coach against Gomez
- Penguins' Kunitz quiet cog in hockey's top line
- Maple Leafs lose Gunnarsson to ankle injury
- Maple Leafs lose Carl Gunnarsson to injury, recall defenceman Keith Aulie
- Columbus Blue Jackets activate Mark Letestu after he missed 17 games with broken hand
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
