2012-2013 NHL Thread

[TML fan]

How about not awarding a point for the shootout win, and simply using it as a tie breaker in the standings? A shootout loss is entered as a tie, and a shootout win goes into the SO column. No points are awarded for an overtime loss.

 

[TML fan]

True, but everyone has a hand in the outcome.

Yeah, but, really, all that does it make the shootout really long. I mean, you're looking at 36 total shooters, minimum, under your proposal. That's just absurd.

On the other hand, I think we'd all be keen to see the majesty of a Colton Orr or Korbinian Holzer shootout attempt.

Hey, if Marek Malik can make YouTube.....

 

[Kessel Run]

A subtle idea to help end games in OT instead of shootouts was suggested on HNIC this past week:

It was suggested that switching ends might help goal scoring in OT, which would add the long change to 4 on 4.

Yeah. I saw that, and I think that's a pretty good suggestion. They said something about more goals being scored in the 2nd period than the 1st or the 3rd (I'm not sure that's necessarily accurate, but, logically, it makes sense), so, the long change could definitely lead to more OT goals.

Yeah I like this idea. Small subtle change.

 

[Deebo]

How about not awarding a point for the shootout win, and simply using it as a tie breaker in the standings? A shootout loss is entered as a tie, and a shootout win goes into the SO column. No points are awarded for an overtime loss.

I think you'd see some terrible OT periods if a team lost a point by giving up a goal.

 

[TML fan]

How about not awarding a point for the shootout win, and simply using it as a tie breaker in the standings? A shootout loss is entered as a tie, and a shootout win goes into the SO column. No points are awarded for an overtime loss.

I think you'd see some terrible OT periods if a team lost a point by giving up a goal.

Maybe. Or perhaps it's more incentive to win, knowing that it's the only way to get 2 points.

They could also award 3 points for a win.

 

[Kin]

How about not awarding a point for the shootout win, and simply using it as a tie breaker in the standings? A shootout loss is entered as a tie, and a shootout win goes into the SO column. No points are awarded for an overtime loss.

The problem with this, and really any other sort of change, is that either the NHL believes that the shootout is a legitimate way to determine a winner and loser or it doesn't. If it does, then there's no reason for a change. If it doesn't, then they should just go back to ties.

The whole reason the shootout exists is that the NHL wants fans to leave games with a sense of a winner and a loser. If winning a shootout was largely meaningless, what's the reason for the shootout at all?

 

[Deebo]

either the NHL believes that the shootout is a legitimate way to determine a winner and loser or it doesn't. If it does, then there's no reason for a change. If it doesn't, then they should just go back to ties.

I think not including SO wins for the wins tiebreak has shown that they don't view an SO victory as equal to a ROW.

 

[Deebo]

Maybe. Or perhaps it's more incentive to win, knowing that it's the only way to get 2 points.

I thought it was why they added the OTL point in the first place, they found OT periods consisted of teams sitting back trying not to get scored on.

 

[Kin]

either the NHL believes that the shootout is a legitimate way to determine a winner and loser or it doesn't. If it does, then there's no reason for a change. If it doesn't, then they should just go back to ties.

I think not including SO wins for the wins tiebreak has shown that they don't view an SO victory as equal to a ROW.

Maybe, but much like goal differential is also a tie breaker I think that's along the lines of not seeing a 2-1 win as being equal to a 6-0 win. They're both wins, one's just better.

 

[TML fan]

It would still determine a winner and a loser, and it would still be meaningful in the sense that it would break a tie in the standings if necessary.

 

[Bonsixx]

I'd rather see a 10-minute, 4-on-4 sudden death overtime period, winner gets two points, loser gets zero. If it ends in a tie, it's a tie and both teams get a point, but I can't help but think most games would end during the overtime in that scenario. 10 minutes of 4-on-4 would lead to a lot of opportunities...

 

[pnjunction]

Would they want to zamboni the ice if they switched ends for OT?

I would support all 3 of these changes:

1) 10 minute OT (4 on 4)
2) Switch ends (zamboni before OT instead of the shootout?)
3) 5 shooters on the shootout OR no shoot-out at all (unlikely)

I also think we should have 3-point regulation wins so that they are all 3-point games, not sure how popular that is.

 

[Kin]

It would still determine a winner and a loser, and it would still be meaningful in the sense that it would break a tie in the standings if necessary.

So a shootout win in November would potentially have some meaning 6 months later? I don't think that's something a knowledgeable hockey fan is going to attach weight to.

I mean, again, the NHL thinks the shoot-out is legit. If it isn't, they shouldn't have it at all.

 

[Deebo]

I also think we should have 3-point regulation wins so that they are all 3-point games, not sure how popular that is.

I've heard this as a concern, that not all games award the same amount of points and never got just why that matters. The reply I always got was something to effect of "That's the way it should be" or "Because!!".

 

[hap_leaf]

I also think we should have 3-point regulation wins so that they are all 3-point games, not sure how popular that is.

I've heard this as a concern, that not all games award the same amount of points and never got just why that matters. The reply I always got was something to effect of "That's the way it should be" or "Because!!".

For those that enjoy year to year comparisons of team point totals, it would add some extra difficulty.  It is already clouded somewhat by 3 point games/OTL but at least you can divide that into 2 eras.  You start to mess with the structure of how many points a good team should have and possibly fringe fans would not understand how to objectively rate and compare between seasons and teams. 

You know, suddenly to compare the 77-78 Canadiens to a team in the new system, they have 188 points instead of 129, whether that is even valid to say.  I suppose you could still look at the win column but the points total is important to a lot of fans and a benchmark for greatness.

 

[Peter D.]

My preference is 10 minutes of 4 on 4, and if that doesn't produce a winner a tie is fine. I know a lot people seem to hate ties, but I don't see the harm them. Sometimes 2 teams play a evenly matched game in which neither team deserves to less points than the other.

I think tie's are best option available since continuous OT isn't an option in the regular season.

Agree completely. 

 

[mc]

Bruins blow 2-0 against the Pens with 6 min left in the game. Lose 3-2 in regulation. Nice. That probably will help digest the Leafs loss today.

 

[pnjunction]

I also think we should have 3-point regulation wins so that they are all 3-point games, not sure how popular that is.

I've heard this as a concern, that not all games award the same amount of points and never got just why that matters. The reply I always got was something to effect of "That's the way it should be" or "Because!!".

Teams in separate conferences have very little motivation to push for a regulation win.  Even with in-conference games there isn't much motivation if the opponent isn't close to you in the standings.  As a result we probably get more OT and hence more shootouts.

For playoff position I wouldn't say it's as big of a deal as, say, conferences and divisions that are different sizes.

 

[Deebo]

Could this be the year the Red Wings playoff streak ends?

 

[mc]

if they are on a downward trend i.e rebuild...next year will be hard to dislike them or hope for any rivalry since they will be in the same conference.