whitesoxfan101 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) I'd like to see 3 points for a true OT or regulation win, none for a true OT or regulation loss, 2 points for a shootout win, and 1 for a shootout loss. This would better reward the winner, admit the shootout is flawed and for the fans, and not reward a team for losing within 5 minutes in a 4 on 4 format, which I don't like. I'd actually like to see OT go back to regular 5 on 5 too. None of any of that will ever happen, but that's my $0.02. Edited February 19, 2008 by whitesoxfan101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 19, 2008 Author Share Posted February 19, 2008 3 points wouldn't work. But you should lose your 1 point if you lose in the OT period. A shootout loss, should stay at one point earned for the team s*** out (of) luck. Shootouts are a gimmick, of course, but the league and fans love them. I will officially boycott the NHL if they EVER take the playoff sudden death format away, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) CWSGuy. The best two sites I use for updated hockey info are SLAM! and THN. These are most definitely not underground or anything, and I'm sure you visit them often, but I think THN is probably the best with hockey analysis, but the true meat and potatoes articles don't come along very often. The article I linked to on David Toews (Jonathan's little brother) a page back was loaded with good information. I guess if you dig on that site you can get the good stuff. I mean seriously, you can't get articles like this anywhere else, just because no one covers hockey like THN. Also, obviously TSN.ca is a great site, especially come Junior championship time. However, getting analysis of NHL players and games beyond what happened and who did it is extremely hard, and it's unfortunate. Wouldn't it be neat to see a hockey player scouted with a 95-98 mph slapshot like you see with pitches? s*** like that would be fun. Edited February 19, 2008 by Steve9347 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I don't care if wins are worth 3, ot losses worth 1.8 and shootout losses worth .6 repeating. I'd probly prefer some systems to others, but the biggest problem is that games are worth a different amount of points. You can't have a game be worth 2 OR 3 points on a given night. It's similar to the college football situation where not every conference has a championship game, only worse. I have to sit here and root for games which involve two western playoff contenders to not go to OT...and that's retarded. Also, teams being at .500 means nothing anymore. If you get to OT, it's either a win or it basically 'doesn't count as a loss,' that's why everyone is around .500 and so many more teams are 'in the race.' Give me the record of games won in regulation vs games lost in regulation, not games won at anytime vs games lost in regulation. The shootout isn't going anywhere, and that's fine, but you can't make it worth the same as a regulation win (or an OT win for that matter). Regulation wins being worth 3 would force teams to play to win at the end, not bank the point and see what happens in ot/shootout if they could only come out with 2 points as a max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 That's the biggest problem I see with the system -- not every result is equal points. Some nights are two points, some are three -- that doesn't seem right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metz Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I wish I had versus ... stupid wide open west Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think the scoring system needs to get back to how it was. Win nets you 2, lose nets you zero no matter if its an OT loss its still a loss and if it ends in a tie then each get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 QUOTE(EvilJester99 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 03:20 PM) I think the scoring system needs to get back to how it was. Win nets you 2, lose nets you zero no matter if its an OT loss its still a loss and if it ends in a tie then each get one. Can't get rid of the shootout, it's brought interest up too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) The shootout is fine...you still score 2 points to the winner and the loser goes off with nothing. All this giving points crap for losing is ridiculous anymore. If you lose you shouldn't be awarded anything. IMO Edited February 19, 2008 by EvilJester99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 I think it would be pretty terrible for a team to make it all the way to the shootout and leave the game with nothing all because they don't have as many good 1-on-1 players as the other team. The shootout now isn't a huge deal -- one team gets one point, the other gets two points. If you change it to 2-0 (points), the shootout takes on a much, MUCH greater importance, and that's not a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) While I agree that is a bad thing, it goes both ways. The team with less talented 1-on-1 player teams would obviously try and win the game in the last few min of regulation, or go balls to the wall in OT. I think that would lead to a lot more excting OT's, along with fewer SO. How much more exciting can OTs be than they currently are? They're wide open as is, and I can't recall the last time I saw an OT that wasn't wide open with lots of opportunities. I'd say the problem lies with the last few minutes of regulation. I don't think I necessarily have a problem with the one-point awarded in OT, although some people clearly don't like that (as evidenced by the last several posts). My feelings are that if you play 60 minutes to a stalemate, you deserve some type of reward. The problem is teams playing for that one point, which isn't the fault of the teams -- not in the slightest sense -- but still ends up being (somewhat) of a detriment to the fans. And I think that goes back to my -- err, Krush's, actually -- point about a non-uniform point total being handed out every night. Three (or, for the folks who don't like the one-point for OT losers, two*) points should be up for grab. I suppose I could come to live with a system that just awarded two points nightly -- that would be uniform -- but I just know that the current system in place isn't what's best for hockey. *Just for clarification, because that may be poorly worded -- I'm talking about OT-losers, the guys who lose in OT. I'm not calling anyone a here a "loser" (I think it's relatively clear, but just in case it's not). Edited February 19, 2008 by CWSGuy406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 04:35 PM) While I agree that is a bad thing, it goes both ways. The team with less talented 1-on-1 player teams would obviously try and win the game in the last few min of regulation, or go balls to the wall in OT. I think that would lead to a lot more excting OT's, along with fewer SO. I am against ties in hockey, but I am also not a huge fan of the SO. However, you really can't have it both ways. It's an interesting deabte. Regardless of if they try to go balls to the wall in OT, you can't penalize a team for not being as talented come shootout time or just flat out losing in a shootout. Can't have a team get 0 for making it to the shootout and then losing. Furthermore, you can't have a shootout win equal to a 3-1 (or whatever) win in regulation. That's completely bogus. If you are going to have a gimmicky shootout, the scoring system must reflect that (with a fixed number of points per game, however...). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Havlat with a breakaway less than 2 minutes in. Nice start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 This game could take a long time with all the after-whistle activities. Very chippy physical start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 07:18 PM) This game could take a long time with all the after-whistle activities. Very chippy physical start. Agreed. This is going to be a very intense game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Well this game went to s*** in a hurry. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniKrush Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 f***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 So I'm out for lunch, with my team at work, and we go to a European Beer Cafe. And what they do have on the TV Screen, Chicago vs. St. Louis. SWEET. So I got to see the end of the 1st, and the majority of the 2nd period. Seemed a very physical game, and that knee to knee hit from Burish didn't exactly go over too well with some of the Blues. And with the score now, it seems it was building up to that, with the shot count the way it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 09:22 PM) So I'm out for lunch, with my team at work, and we go to a European Beer Cafe. And what they do have on the TV Screen, Chicago vs. St. Louis. SWEET. So I got to see the end of the 1st, and the majority of the 2nd period. Seemed a very physical game, and that knee to knee hit from Burish didn't exactly go over too well with some of the Blues. And with the score now, it seems it was building up to that, with the shot count the way it was. It was more of a hip check than a knee on knee from what I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Hawks have been getting seriously outplayed tonight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(SoxFanForever @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 02:25 PM) It was more of a hip check than a knee on knee from what I saw. Well it was pretty borderline, but you're probably right (since you've seen way more hockey than I have). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 (edited) Not to say SFF is wrong, but I saw more of what DBAHO saw -- an intent of a knee-to-knee hit with a little bit of a hip-check thrown in there. It wasn't completely scummy in that he didn't go out of his way to throw the knee at his knee (ala that scum-sock Klesla -- although IIRC he went hip-to-knee on Ruutu), but it did look like he made a little bit of a move towards his knee. Edited February 20, 2008 by CWSGuy406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxFanForever Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 11:50 AM) Not to say SFF is wrong, but I saw more of what DBAHO saw -- an intent of a knee-to-knee hit with a little bit of a hip-check thrown in there. It wasn't completely scummy in that he didn't go out of his way to throw the knee at his knee (ala that scum-sock Klesla -- although IIRC he went hip-to-knee on Ruutu), but it did look like he made a little bit of a move towards his knee. After watching the replay a few more times I can see where you and DB are coming from. I don't think Burish is a dirty player. However, it did look like he was throwing some knee in there.l Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 All in all, it was a pretty scrappy - dirty game. Probably a sign that the rivalry b/w the Blues and Hawks is starting to heat up again, 2 young teams with eyes on the playoffs. I heard that Perrault is injured as well, hindering DT's efforts to deal him. I would have thought Phoenix would have had some interest in him (considering his success there last season, and they're in a playoff spot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 This game is playing just like last night. Hawks came out and played well in the first, but the Wild have controlled the play in the second. Also... why the f*** did Savard split up Toews and Kane again? I don't like that Kane-Lang-Havlat line -- which of those guys on that line can play in the corners? Which of those guys can play in front of the net? Of course, I'm sure we'll see Savard b**** out Havlat again for not doing something that he's never done and most likely never will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts