Jump to content

NHL GM Meetings


Sodboy13

Recommended Posts

From the postgame on Versus tonight, the GMs down in Florida are considering alternative methods of tallying standings points next year. These are just proposals, and if neither of them are agreed upon, it'll be the same scoring system next year.

Proposal A: 2 pts for a win, 0 pts for a loss. That's it.

Proposal B: 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for an OT/SO win, 1 pt for an OT/SO loss, 0 pts for a regulation loss.

To me, neither of these make sense. The first proposal is oversimplified, reducing standings to wins and losses like any other sport, and making the whole concept of standings points useless. The second proposal, I think it goes without saying, is ridiculously overcomplicated. For the last time, NHL, do this:

Win: 2 points.

Shootout loss: 1 point.

Regulation OT/Loss: 0 points.

The concept of gaining 2 points in the standings instead of 1 gives teams motivation to play even harder in the 5 minutes of overtime. And standings get simplified back to three columns (W-L-SL), instead of the confusing four. What the hell's so hard to grasp about this?

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL wants to change the system to get rid of unscheduled "bonus points" that come from Shootout and OT wins. In that case, the 3 point system outlined in Proposal B makes the most sense.

Sodboy, the problem with your system is that when it comes to OT play, most coaches don't see the "gain two if you win" but rather the "gain 0 if you lose" and spend 5 minutes of conservative, don't blow it play.

On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said:
You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now.
On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said:
Today, we are all otaku.

"The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert

POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010

The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Win: 2 points.

Shootout loss: 1 point.

Regulation OT/Loss: 0 points.

The concept of gaining 2 points in the standings instead of 1 gives teams motivation to play even harder in the 5 minutes of overtime. And standings get simplified back to three columns (W-L-SL), instead of the confusing four. What the hell's so hard to grasp about this?

Won't making an overtime loss worth no points make more teams play conservative in the overtime because they don't want to give up a big play and lose in overtime rather than playing for the point in the overtime and then going for the extra point in the shootout?

The system is perfect the way it is right now. There are only three columns in the standings right now anyways (W-L-OTL). A shootout loss is considered an overtime loss in the standings, so it's not overly complicated for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NHL wants to change the system to get rid of unscheduled "bonus points" that come from Shootout and OT wins. In that case, the 3 point system outlined in Proposal B makes the most sense.

Sodboy, the problem with your system is that when it comes to OT play, most coaches don't see the "gain two if you win" but rather the "gain 0 if you lose" and spend 5 minutes of conservative, don't blow it play.

Which also means more shootouts which I think the league would like to avoid. Any entertainment value of the shootout has long run out and they are the absolute worst way to decide the game. It is so far removed from the regular game both team work wise and more importantly momentum wise. I would extend OT to 10 minutes to try and further cut down on them. Personally I rather have ties back, I've been to plenty of tie games and never felt shortchanged by them. I rather see a tie game than a blowout or a game decided by a gimmick. That said I know it isn't going anywhere and I just hope that it doesn't make it's way into the playoffs.

The way it is now needs to change, it has gotten crazy with the 3 point games. If your team is in a 3 team race and the other two teams are playing if the game goes to OT your team gets screwed because both teams gain on you instead of 1. At least with the 3 point system they split the points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT should be 10 minutes and each team should ice 5 shooters in the shootouts. That's what I'd like to see.

staffordsigbuffda6.jpg

Owner of

Kalamazoo Tech Kobras (Nat'l College Fant. Assc. Basketball, Football, and Hockey)

2006-07 NCFAB National Champions

2006 NCFAF Midwest Conf. Champions

Rochester Patriots (Major League Hockey - AHL Fantasy League) 2005-06 Neilson Cup Champs

Detroit Black Panthers (Xtreme Hockey League) 2005-06 Yzerman Conference Champs

Sheldon Motorsports (TRAC) - #20 Guinness Chevy & #21 UPS Chevy #44 Syracuse University Chevy

Commissioner of

MLH (Major League Hockey, an AHL Fantasy League)

TRAC (Team Racing Auto Circuit, NASCAR)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OT should be 10 minutes and each team should ice 5 shooters in the shootouts. That's what I'd like to see.

Sadly, over 81 games, it would gove an advantage to those who are leading at the end of regulation (if that is what you want to do). A win could be a win and a loss a loss, but I am not sure that the hockey broadcasters would think about those rules. They may give a backlash like NASCAR sponsors do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't happen. Not in this "new" NHL.

But they need to drop the shootout (exciting? yes. bad way to decide a game? yes) and go back to 5-5 OTs.

2 for a win. 0 for a loss. 1 for a tie.

That was a GREAT system. GREAT.

I've felt that way since they first starter tinkering with the system way back with the introduction of 4-4 OT and the extra point.

I can usually stand "improvements" and new ideas. But it was never necessary in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! The old system worked just fine!

What I'm about to say is probably more than a little cliché coming from a hockey fan from Canada, but I think the reason it was changed in the first place was undoubtedly to try and appeal to prospective fans from the southern states, who are used to watching sports (football, baseball, basketball) which don't have ties (although it is possible in football, I know, but it doesn't happen often).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second proposal, I think it goes without saying, is ridiculously overcomplicated.

How hard is it to look at a box score and do the math in your head on the fly?

[Croatia National Team Manager Slavan] Bilic then went on to explain how Croatia's success can partially be put down to his progressive man-management techniques. "Sometimes I lie in the bed with my players. I go to the room of Vedran Corluka and Luka Modric when I see they have a problem and I lie in bed with them and we talk for 10 minutes." Maybe Capello could try getting through to his players this way too? Although how far he'd get with Joe Cole jumping up and down on the mattress and Rooney demanding to be read his favourite page from The Very Hungry Caterpillar is open to question. --The Guardian's Fiver, 08 September 2008

Attention: In order to obtain maximum enjoyment from your stay at the CCSLC, the reader is advised that the above post may contain large amounts of sarcasm, dry humour, or statements which should not be taken in any true sort of seriousness. As a result, the above poster absolves himself of any and all blame in the event that a forum user responds to the aforementioned post without taking the previous notice into account. Thank you for your cooperation, and enjoy your stay at the CCSLC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy they've gotten rid of ties. It was ridiculous to spend so much money for tickets and then have teams getting 17 ties a year. Those were just so unsatisfying. Shootouts get everyone standing and the only other thing that gets that reaction is a fight. I think they are here to stay.

Something does need to be done to alter how the points are done though. With so many teams getting a point for losing in OT or the shootout, a team can win literally 14 of 19 games and gain 4 points in the standings.

"Losses" need to be worth less, or more likely, wins need to be worth more. It would make the most sense for each game to be worth the same number of points. Say it's 3. Then a regulation win gets you 3. Decide if a OT win is 3 or 2. If it's 2, then the loser gets 1. 2 points for a shootout win, 1 for the loser.

Soccer survived the move to 3 points for a win and so could hockey.

Any chance they are going to fix the schedule issues with these meetings?

HansonsSig.jpg

Click here to read Third String Goalie - The Hockey Jersey of the Day Blog

Click here to see my hockey and baseball jersey collection online

?You don?t like to see 20 kids punching 20 other kids. But it?s not a disgrace, It?s hockey.? - Michael Farber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My proposal?

If a MLB style W-L, GB PCT style standings won't fly...

3 pts for Reg win

2 pts for OT win

1 pt for OT loss

60 mins regulation

5 mins overtime

back and forth 5 v 3, 2 min PP's until a winner is decided (NCAA/CFL OT style)

---

Chris Creamer
Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net

 

"The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't make regulation wins worth 3 points each. The final standings at the end of the year will look like NBA All-Star Game linescores. You would have playoff races decided a few weeks in advance instead of the last day of the season.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

champssig2.png
Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.

My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't happen. Not in this "new" NHL.

But they need to drop the shootout (exciting? yes. bad way to decide a game? yes) and go back to 5-5 OTs.

2 for a win. 0 for a loss. 1 for a tie.

That was a GREAT system. GREAT.

I've felt that way since they first starter tinkering with the system way back with the introduction of 4-4 OT and the extra point.

I can usually stand "improvements" and new ideas. But it was never necessary in this case.

Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, want's a game with no winner anymore. And I find it less than great. :cursing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second proposal, I think it goes without saying, is ridiculously overcomplicated.

How hard is it to look at a box score and do the math in your head on the fly?

For me, you, and most hockey fans on this board, not hard at all.

For the general "math is scary" public, oh, jeebus.

A complicated standings system could represent another barrier between the NHL and an expanded fan base.

But hey, then again, look at NASCAR's goofy-arse points system.

On 1/25/2013 at 1:53 PM, 'Atom said:

For all the bird de lis haters I think the bird de lis isnt supposed to be a pelican and a fleur de lis I think its just a fleur de lis with a pelicans head. Thats what it looks like to me. Also the flair around the tip of the beak is just flair that fleur de lis have sometimes source I am from NOLA.

PotD: 10/19/07, 08/25/08, 07/22/10, 08/13/10, 04/15/11, 05/19/11, 01/02/12, and 01/05/12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No standings points. You get a win if you win. You don't if you lose. Wins are wins, whether in regulation, overtime, or shootout. When the Cubs manage to not lose a game until a 12th inning, it's no less of a loss than when they boot it in the 3rd. I don't think hockey should have varying degrees of wins and losses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! The old system worked just fine!

What I'm about to say is probably more than a little cliché coming from a hockey fan from Canada, but I think the reason it was changed in the first place was undoubtedly to try and appeal to prospective fans from the southern states, who are used to watching sports (football, baseball, basketball) which don't have ties (although it is possible in football, I know, but it doesn't happen often).

whats the point of having a contest of any sort and ending it a tie.

what are we playing 1st grade kickball and not keeping score?

OhioStateBuckeyesLightBanner.png by RoscoeUA

hailtothechief.png by gingerbreadman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! The old system worked just fine!

What I'm about to say is probably more than a little cliché coming from a hockey fan from Canada, but I think the reason it was changed in the first place was undoubtedly to try and appeal to prospective fans from the southern states, who are used to watching sports (football, baseball, basketball) which don't have ties (although it is possible in football, I know, but it doesn't happen often).

whats the point of having a contest of any sort and ending it a tie.

what are we playing 1st grade kickball and not keeping score?

That is bad analogy. Score is kept but at the end of the allotted time the team come out even. A game gives you more of an indication of how each team played that night than a shouldn't which as I said before is completely removed from the game. There is no team work involved and there is no momentum carried in to it. It's a gimmick. If I'm watching a great game that goes into OT I find myself praying for someone to score in the OT because a shootout would completely ruin how great a game it was. You might as well decide games by just rock, paper, scissors because that tells you as much about the game as a shootout does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't happen. Not in this "new" NHL.

But they need to drop the shootout (exciting? yes. bad way to decide a game? yes) and go back to 5-5 OTs.

2 for a win. 0 for a loss. 1 for a tie.

That was a GREAT system. GREAT.

I've felt that way since they first starter tinkering with the system way back with the introduction of 4-4 OT and the extra point.

I can usually stand "improvements" and new ideas. But it was never necessary in this case.

Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY, want's a game with no winner anymore. And I find it less than great. :cursing:

Are you pretending somebody didn't write that post then?

Because, I wrote it, and I believe it.

Ties don't bother me. I find them to usually be pretty entertaining games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just have the simple situation of 3 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss, and ditch the shootout? I figure that in overtime, coaches will risk one point in an attempt to get three, assuming that they keep overtime. (They can ditch OT and I wouldn't care any)

LvZYtbZ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.