Around the NHL (Part XIII): RIP Bob Suter

[Hawkaholic]

Anything is better than the shootout.

 

[member 151739]

Anything is better than the shootout.

Besides ties.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Besides ties.

Nope.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I want the 3-2-1 system so bad. I would be more excepting of shootouts if they weren't equal to full wins and I wish there was more to play for tied late in the 3rd.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

2 pts for win (Any win SO , OT , Reg)
1 pt for SOL
0 pts for OTL

 

[IU Hawks fan]

2 pts for win (Any win SO , OT , Reg)
1 pt for SOL
0 pts for OTL

Makes OT too defensive if you can lose your point.

Awful.

 

[hisgirlfriday]

I want the 3-2-1 system so bad. I would be more excepting of shootouts if they weren't equal to full wins and I wish there was more to play for tied late in the 3rd.

I don't really have a problem with shootouts but I want the 3 point reg win for better late 3rd period action and seeing someone pull a goalie in a tie game.

 

[member 151739]

3 points for regulation win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for shootout win
0 points for any loss

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Eh, I still view any points system as an obsolete holdout in system that doesn't have ties anymore. If I had ultimate say, it'd just be straight wins and losses. Oh, you lasted longer than sixty minutes before you lost? Too bad, you still lost. Oh, it took you until a gimmick shootout to win? Eh, well, a win's a win regardless of whether you win by a foot or a mile. Oh, you don't think that shootout victors should be rewarded as much as winning during the game itself? Sorry, but that sounds more like an anti-shootout argument versus a statement why a points system still makes sense.

Just my two cents. Either keep the two point system (and I mean the actual two point system, not the post-'99 system that gave a point for merely making it to OT and created three-point games) and bring back ties or don't have ties and go by just a win-loss record.

I fully expect most to disagree with me, though.

 

[Kurtosis]

The North American obsession with not having ties is really odd.

 

[member 151739]

The North American obsession with not having ties is really odd.

There has to be a winner and a loser.

 

[Kurtosis]

There has to be a winner and a loser.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[member 151739]

Thanks for proving my point.

My pleasure.

 

[Kurtosis]

My pleasure.

Hey, any time. Welcome back.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Eh, I still view any points system as an obsolete holdout in system that doesn't have ties anymore. If I had ultimate say, it'd just be straight wins and losses. Oh, you lasted longer than sixty minutes before you lost? Too bad, you still lost. Oh, it took you until a gimmick shootout to win? Eh, well, a win's a win regardless of whether you win by a foot or a mile.

Yeah, I really don't want to have the same discussion I've had probably 100 times on various parts of HF, but I can't stress how much I hate this

 

[Kurtosis]

Yeah, I really don't want to have the same discussion I've had probably 100 times on various parts of HF, but I can't stress how much I hate this

Couldn't agree more. Especially the last part...straight wins and losses on a skills competition is asinine.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

Three points for a regulation win
Two points for an OT win
Two points for a SO win but OT win's count more than SO win's as a tie breaker at the end of the year
One point for an overtime loss
Zero points for a regulation loss

Boom. Or we could go win - 2 tie - 1 loss - 0 which would be fine with me.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Couldn't agree more. Especially the last part...straight wins and losses on a skills competition is asinine.

Again though, that's not really an argument against a wins-losses system, it's an argument against the shootout itself. By saying that it's an inferior way to determine who should get points, all it's really doing is saying that the game itself is flawed for having it in the first place.

Heck, why even give a point for it in that case? If you want to say that the shootout is the new tie, then fine.... each team gets a point and the shootout win is just used as a tiebreaker at the end of the season if need be. Fair? Gimmick isn't rewarded outright, there's an incentive to win the shootout if push comes to shove for the tiebreaker, and there's even more of an incentive to win it in overtime as it'd mean the difference between a point and two points.

 

[Kurtosis]

Again though, that's not really an argument against a wins-losses system, it's an argument against the shootout itself. By saying that it's an inferior way to determine who should get points, all it's really doing is saying that the game itself is flawed for having it in the first place.

Heck, why even give a point for it in hasn't case? If you want to say that the shootout is the new tie, then fine.... each team gets a point and the shootout win is just used as a tiebreaker for a tie at the end of the season. Fair? Gimmick isn't rewarded outright, there's an incentive to win the shootout if push comes to shove for the tiebreaker, and there's even more of an incentive to win it in overtime as it'd mean there difference between a point and two points.

I'm a proponent of just going back to ties after overtime. It is an argument against strict win-loss in the current construct though.

The shootout is an abomination that should be eliminated immediately.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Again though, that's not really an argument against a wins-losses system, it's an argument against the shootout itself. By saying that it's an inferior way to determine who should get points, all it's really doing is saying that the game itself is flawed for having it in the first place.

Heck, why even give a point for it in that case? If you want to say that the shootout is the new tie, then fine.... each team gets a point and the shootout win is just used as a tiebreaker at the end of the season if need be. Fair? Gimmick isn't rewarded outright, there's an incentive to win the shootout if push comes to shove for the tiebreaker, and there's even more of an incentive to win it in overtime as it'd mean the difference between a point and two points.

Because that's still a tie in the average fans eye.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I'm a proponent of just going back to ties after overtime. It is an argument against strict win-loss in the current construct though.

The shootout is an abomination that should be eliminated immediately.

Gotcha, we're just looking at two sides of the same coin then.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Because that's still a tie in the average fans eye.

True, but I guess that's just an inherent problem with the sport. Not every sport can be lucky enough to have something as simple and fair as extra innings in baseball, and that will be one of the few times you hear me say that baseball's got a leg up on hockey, even though I do likes me some baseball.

 

[Sevanston]

Instead of a shootout, we should have a boxing match at center ice to make enforcers relevant again.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Instead of a shootout, we should have a boxing match at center ice to make enforcers relevant again.

Not gimmicky enough.

5 minutes of 5-on-5
4 minutes of 4-on-4
3 minutes of 3-on-3
2 minutes of 2-on-2
1 minute of 1-on-1
Fistfight at center ice between the two goaltenders.

Perfection, and Ray Emery will always have work in the NHL as a specialty, 6 OT goaltender.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Picked up a pair of tickets for the 3/23 Hawks @ Canes game. Will be the third year in a row that I've caught a game at PNC arena, and two times running that I was there for when the Hawks were in town.

Hawks annual trip to Raleigh makes for a good excuse to visit my brother, sister-in-law, and niece in Durham. Might do a summer trip there for when the Cubs are in DC next year as well and do a roadie up to the nation's capital.