Jump to content


MacK_Attack's Photo

MacK_Attack

Member Since 18 Feb 2003
Offline Last Active Mar 29 2014 04:14 PM
****-

Posts I've Made

In Topic: In Memoriam: 19/12/1926 - 18/03/2004.

21 March 2014 - 02:58 PM

I don't know, getting rid of the loser point might push more games to OT and SO as opposed to having the opposite impact.  With the loser point, teams at least push harder for the win, knowing they have the safety net of the single point.  If you take that away, they might be more cautious and take there chances with the SO.

 

The problem is that there's so little incentive to win in regulation and the overtime is too short. If the game is tied in the 3rd period, they will make sure they get their point before they try to win the game. That's where the problem of the short OT comes in, because try as they may to win, it's hard to score with only five minutes to do so. The end result is a lot of shootouts.

 

Here's the best way to cut down on shootouts, IMO:

 

Use a winning percentage based system, or 2 points for a win and zero points for any kind of loss, if you want to keep a points system.

First tiebreaker in the standings is regulation wins.

Second tiebreaker is regulation + overtime wins. 

Overtime format of 10-minute 4-on-4, with goaltenders switching ends after the 3rd period. Then a shootout.

 

The problem is that the extra point for reaching overtime is too enticing for teams to risk by opening the game up in the 3rd period. The second problem is that a 5-minute overtime is generally too short. Hence, you end up with a lot of shootouts.

 

So you remove the incentive to reach overtime and you extend the overtime period to give teams more of an opportunity to end the game without having to play a shootout.

 

The other alternative is two points for a regulation or OT win, one point for a shootout win, zero points for a loss of any kind. I can't support any system that rewards losing.

 

Either way, it downplays the impact of the shootout on the standings and encourages teams to win in regulation.

 

As long as there is a reward for reaching overtime, teams are going to be all too willing to let a game get to overtime.


In Topic: In Memoriam: 19/12/1926 - 18/03/2004.

18 March 2014 - 08:28 PM

Bring in the 3 point system. Making a regulation win more valuable will make teams want to win in regulation, rather than suck the life out of the game to try and guarantee a point and then take a gamble in a shootout. That combined with Holland's idea for OT would significantly reduce the amount of shootouts we see. My guess would be by over half.

 

Just get rid of the OT point. If there's no incentive to get to overtime, teams will stop strategizing with overtime in mind.

 

Teams play to win the game (or not lose) in the first 40 minutes. If it's tied or a one-goal game heading into the 3rd, the entire focus is getting the game to overtime. They will grind the game to a halt to ensure they get that point.

 

I don't like the idea of 3-on-3. I don't like the shootout because it's gimmicky and decides a hockey game with a skills competition. 3-on-3 isn't far off that. Just do away with the loser point and have a 10-minute 4-on-4 and I think there would be a tremendous decline in the number of games going to a shootout.


In Topic: In Memoriam: 19/12/1926 - 18/03/2004.

18 March 2014 - 10:38 AM

I never hated ties, I just hate that teams completely shut the game down to ensure they got the single point.

 

The addition of the loser point helped alleviate some of that, but then you had teams shutting the game down in the 3rd period to ensure they get to overtime. That's what you see nearly every game when it's tied in the 3rd period.

 

The solution is simple. Get rid of the loser point. It was introduced when there were still ties, but it serves no purpose today other than to reward losing.

 

People hate the shootout, but the real problem is that too many games get that far because far too many teams are happy to choke the life out of the game to ensure they get the OT point.

 

If you take away the incentive of getting to overtime, logic suggests teams may actually try to win a tied game in regulation.


In Topic: Maple Leafs 2 @ Red Wings 3

18 March 2014 - 10:08 AM

van Riemsdyk - Bozak - Kessel

Lupul - Kadri - Clarkson

Raymond - Kulemin - Bodie

Ashton - McClement

 

Gunnarsson - Phaneuf

Gleason - Rielly

Gardiner - Franson

Ranger

 

Reimer starts


In Topic: 12/21 GDT: Red Wings 5 @ Maple Leafs 4 (SO, yes, SO)

21 December 2013 - 12:07 PM

Jerred Smithson centers Leafs 4th line and Liles is playing in place of Fraser.