Post-Game Talk: LEAFS WIN 4-2: Hey Jets is there anything better than losing to the Leafs

[Sypher04]

To me, a tie is a definitive result. I grew up with ties, I never saw it as a problem and don't remember anyone else complaining about it either. The NHL did just fine with ties for what, 80 years or so before deciding the game needed gimmicks?

Yeah I grew up with them too, I guess I just never really liked ties. That said, I don’t like gimmicks either. Im certainly not advocating for gimmicks.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yeah I grew up with them too, I guess I just never really liked ties. That said, I don’t like gimmicks either. Im certainly not advocating for gimmicks.

I never had a problem with ties myself. Like that game last week that was 0-0 after regulation, that was a pretty entertaining game to watch and a 0-0 result would have been a fine and just outcome. But no, because we must have a winner, bring on the gimmicks and a few minutes later, we have a winner. It's artificial, gimmicky nonsense.

 

[fancy lad]

I’d be fine with keeping 3 on 3 overtome, but getting rid of the shootout. The shootout really has no place in anything other than a skills competition.

 

[Mr_Fun]

My first choice would be to do away with the gimmicks altogether but this would be my second choice. Having some games worth 2 points and others worth 3 is a sign of a mickey mouse league IMO.


To me, a tie is a definitive result. I grew up with ties, I never saw it as a problem and don't remember anyone else complaining about it either. The NHL did just fine with ties for what, 80 years or so before deciding the game needed gimmicks?


I liked that interview actually, nothing wrong with not saying yeah, that other guy is better, they should draft him over me. But yeah, didn't age well to say the least LOL.

Yeah, I've never had an issue with the concept of ties. I've seen lots of great games that ended up in a tie without ever thinking I needed a gimmick to convince me it was a good or exciting game.

To be fair, I'm one of the "oldies" and perhaps the youger crowd sees more merit in 3 on 3 and shootouts?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yeah, I've never had an issue with the concept of ties. I've seen lots of great games that ended up in a tie without ever thinking I needed a gimmick to convince me it was a good or exciting game.

To be fair, I'm one of the "oldies" and perhaps the youger crowd sees more merit in 3 on 3 and shootouts?

Sometimes two teams play a great game, and a tie is an appropriate result. Then the gimmicks start, and a few minutes later one team is labelled the loser which kind of devalues the entire game IMO. Of course I'm one of the "oldies" too so ...

I remember the New Year's Eve game between MTL and the Red Army, that 3-3 tie often gets mentioned as one of the greatest games ever played. Both teams played like champions, can you imagine if one team had to end up being labelled the loser because of some gimmick nonsense?

 

[Crocket]

Sometimes two teams play a great game, and a tie is an appropriate result. Then the gimmicks start, and a few minutes later one team is labelled the loser which kind of devalues the entire game IMO. Of course I'm one of the "oldies" too so ...

I remember the New Year's Eve game between MTL and the Red Army, that 3-3 tie often gets mentioned as one of the greatest games ever played. Both teams played like champions, can you imagine if one team had to end up being labelled the loser because of some gimmick nonsense?


Get back in your cage.

It is more fun when you guys make the playoffs

 

[Enga Olly]

I never had a problem with ties myself. Like that game last week that was 0-0 after regulation, that was a pretty entertaining game to watch and a 0-0 result would have been a fine and just outcome. But no, because we must have a winner, bring on the gimmicks and a few minutes later, we have a winner. It's artificial, gimmicky nonsense.

It's an attempt to appeal to Americans - American popular culture does not like ties, it's akin to socialism

 

[Mr_Fun]

That's legitimately surprising. I get times are tough and Winnipeg doesn't have the same corporate downtown like here but the Jets are having a great season, you'd think people would want to go see them.

I never want to see a Canadian team struggling at the gate. They've generally had a very supportive fan base over the years, and yeah, it's weird to see a top tier team struggle.

 

[Confucius]

I never had a problem with ties myself. Like that game last week that was 0-0 after regulation, that was a pretty entertaining game to watch and a 0-0 result would have been a fine and just outcome. But no, because we must have a winner, bring on the gimmicks and a few minutes later, we have a winner. It's artificial, gimmicky nonsense.

Because it’s fairly new it seems gimmicky. What about OT in the playoffs? 1st goal wins, gimmicky bs, a period is 20 minutes long. Special gimmicky rule.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Because it’s fairly new it seems gimmicky. What about OT in the playoffs? 1st goal wins, gimmicky bs, a period is 20 minutes long. Special gimmicky rule.

Strongly disagree. It seems gimmicky because it is gimmicky, simple as that. What's gimmicky about OT?

 

[Confucius]

Strongly disagree. It seems gimmicky because it is gimmicky, simple as that. What's gimmicky about OT?

1st goal wins is gimmicky, invented to end the game. They should play full periods. Why not play games 1st goal wins from the beginning? People accept it because that’s the way it’s been.

 

[Evilhomer]

To me, a tie is a definitive result. I grew up with ties, I never saw it as a problem and don't remember anyone else complaining about it either. The NHL did just fine with ties for what, 80 years or so before deciding the game needed gimmicks?

The old guy in me chalks it up to a symptom of society at large. Personally, I think a tied game is perfectly fine. As you say, it is a definitive result. Two teams played an equal game. There is nothing wrong with that. I dislike both overtime and the shootout, but at the same time I know there is a big demographic that likes those things. For me, regular season overtime and shootouts are painful to watch. Not to be dramatic about it, but they are an injustice to game. They might as well flip a coin at the end of regulation and save everyone a lot of time.

 

[Buds17]

Because it’s fairly new it seems gimmicky. What about OT in the playoffs? 1st goal wins, gimmicky bs, a period is 20 minutes long. Special gimmicky rule.

Playoff OT is at least true to the periods which preceded it (5 on 5). The same cannot be said for regular season OT and definitely not for the shootout. "First goal wins" is also essentially a necessity for the grueling playoff games which last for multiple periods of OT.

 

[Evilhomer]

Strongly disagree. It seems gimmicky because it is gimmicky, simple as that. What's gimmicky about OT?

Someone came up with the magic of 3 on 3, but why not make it 1 on 1? I think I would actually rather watch that. Make OT Matthews versus Kucherov. Why bother adding the extra two players on each side?

 

[Confucius]

Playoff OT is at least true to the periods which preceded it (5 on 5). The same cannot be said for regular season OT and definitely not for the shootout. First goal wins is also essentially a necessity for the playoff games which last for multiple periods of OT.

Should play out the whole game with the same rules, any special rule change is just a gimmick. Old gimmicks get accepted, fans have a hard time accepting new rules.

 

[Evilhomer]

1st goal wins is gimmicky, invented to end the game. They should play full periods. Why not play games 1st goal wins from the beginning? People accept it because that’s the way it’s been.

I actually like the idea of finishing the period in OT, regardless of whether a goal is scored.

 

[Confucius]

I actually like the idea of finishing the period in OT, regardless of whether a goal is scored.

Exactly, the marathon games would be epic. True meaning to the last one standing

 

[ACC1224]

Should play out the whole game with the same rules, any special rule change is just a gimmick. Old gimmicks get accepted, fans have a hard time accepting new rules.

That’s not true at all. Most new rules are accepted and liked. Which ones are you thinking of that weren’t accepted?

 

[Confucius]

That’s not true at all. Most new rules are accepted and liked. Which ones are you thinking of that weren’t accepted?

Well the guys are currently discussing the loser point and gimmick point as not being real points. Or am I mistaken?

 

[Buds17]

Should play out the whole game with the same rules, any special rule change is just a gimmick. Old gimmicks get accepted, fans have a hard time accepting new rules.

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree then. No worries. IMO, regular season OT is designed to produce end-to-end chances and the shootout is an outright contest of penalty shots (I also dislike how the winning goal in a shootout isn't credited to the player's stats but would be if it occurred via penalty shot at any previous juncture).

 

[Confucius]

We'll have to respectfully agree to disagree then. No worries. Regular season OT is definitely designed to produce end-to-end chances and the shootout is an outright contest of penalty shots (I also dislike how the winning goal in a shootout isn't credited to the player's stats but would be if it occurred via penalty shot at a previous juncture).

Bottom line in both cases those rules were put in place to end the game quickly as possible.

 

[ACC1224]

Well the guys are currently discussing the loser point and gimmick point as not being real points. Or am I mistaken?

Correct. What are the others you’re referring to?

 

[Confucius]

Correct. What are the others you’re referring to?

Just those

 

[Gary Nylund]

1st goal wins is gimmicky, invented to end the game. They should play full periods. Why not play games 1st goal wins from the beginning? People accept it because that’s the way it’s been.

I don't think you're making much sense here. I mean even if OT was a full period, I suppose you could complain about it being gimmicky because it's not a full 60 minutes. See the bolded in the post below, that poster makes a 100% valid point.

Playoff OT is at least true to the periods which preceded it (5 on 5). The same cannot be said for regular season OT and definitely not for the shootout. "First goal wins" is also essentially a necessity for the grueling playoff games which last for multiple periods of OT.

Exactly.

 

[Gallagbi]

Obviously I know that’s how the NHL counts them from a standings perspective, but if we’re creating a regulation points percentage metric (of which I’m not aware if the nhl has one) then I don’t personally think ties should be factored. The game lacks a definitive result, so I don’t thinking adding ties is worthwhile.

I admittedly am not sure what you’re going for with the second part tbh. Every game in my calculation is worth 2, that’s part of why I don’t want ties included personally.

Everything I’ve written here is about calculating a regulation point percentage metric, not determining standings. I suspect based on some of the replies I’ve received that perhaps that was lost in translation over the course of the posts?

I think it's fine if you want to throw out incomplete games rather than calling them ties and calculating them as a point.

Second piece was just math. If you're throwing out ties and OT scenarios, your calculating a winning%, so you don't need to multiply each game by 2. Win half your games and you have a 50% win rate. You also have a .500 pts% in that scenario, whether a win is worth 1 or 100 pts.

It's possible I missed something along the way, I haven't been paying all that much attention, so apologies if that's the case.