Post-Game Talk: No OT, No SO, No Win. Habs lose 2-1

[Catanddogguitarrr]

You've never heard of the term 'loser point'? I've seen it used plenty of times every day, are you sure you're unfamiliar with the notion?

Logicly Price has been the champion of stolen points. It's not an elegant title, it have the agenda do decrease his accomplishments. Just saying that as an apart comment, it wasn't your intention, I just think and make extrapolation, where stolen and loser points narrative are going. You have to be careful with narratives such as this.

 

[ReHabs]

No I’m very familiar with the notion. It only occurs if you are tied at the end of regulation, which means the team that was way, way obviously so much better coached and way way more talented than the pathetic piece of shit lineup you love reminding us we have didn’t manage to beat them in 60 minutes.

The Habs are more-or-less bottom5 in the NHL in Goals For, Goals Against, Shots For, and Shots Against. The Pt% doesn't reflect that because 3 OTLs and 4OTWs (neither of which are relevant in the playoffs) inflate it... hence the term with which you now claim you are familiar, 'loser points'.

Logicly Price has been the champion of stolen points. It's not an elegant title, it have the agenda do decrease his accomplishments. Just saying that as an apart comment, it wasn't your intention, I just think and make extrapolation, where stolen and loser points are going. You have to be careful with narratives such as this.

It entirely depends on the context of the evaluation.

If we're evaluating the team and want to get to the objective truth of the team, we would look at the facts. Does the team control the puck? Does the team have good special-teams play? etc.

If we're just trying to make the playoffs because winning in the playoffs is our focus (as it was during the Price era) then we don't care so much about the objective truth of the team, do we? We just want to finish in a playoff spot and have the best possible roster to win playoff series. In this case we would want every stolen point we could get. We'd be thankful and grateful that Price stole points. It would mean our superstar is doing his job. Nobody complained about Price stealing points in the Canada division season that ended with our unlikely and exciting Finals run.

In this context it is clear that the Habs will likely regress to reflect the stats if they don't improve performances. That means Caufield has to score more, Suzuki has to score more, Slafkosvky has to score more, etc. If the players perform better, we will be closer to really being a "0.500" team. It's not a controversial thought!

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

The Habs are more-or-less bottom5 in the NHL in Goals For, Goals Against, Shots For, and Shots Against. The Pt% doesn't reflect that because 3 OTLs and 4OTWs (neither of which are relevant in the playoffs) inflate it... hence the term with which you now claim you are familiar, 'loser points'.


It entirely depends on the context of the evaluation.

If we're evaluating the team and want to get to the objective truth of the team, we would look at the facts. Does the team control the puck? Does the team have good special-teams play? etc.

If we're just trying to make the playoffs because winning in the playoffs is our focus (as it was during the Price era) then we don't care so much about the objective truth of the team, do we? We just want to finish in a playoff spot and have the best possible roster to win playoff series. In this case we would want every stolen point we could get. We'd be thankful and grateful that Price stole points. It would mean our superstar is doing his job. Nobody complained about Price stealing points in the Canada division season that ended with our unlikely and exciting Finals run.

In this context it is clear that the Habs will likely regress to reflect the stats if they don't improve performances. That means Caufield has to score more, Suzuki has to score more, Slafkosvky has to score more, etc. If the players perform better, we will be closer to really being a "0.500" team. It's not a controversial thought!

I agree on that. It's just that we are still early in the rebuilding years and I'm not expecting to see real improvements this year. Except Slaf playing better, I wasn't expecting that. Or not at this point. (but still early on that, he could go in a slump, like the rest of the team)

If you want Suzuki, CC and others to score more, you're at the wrong place or in the wrong years. By any stats, we are at the very bottom of the league. Don't need advanced stats, my eye test sees it. Because somewhere in my heart I'm a good guy, I allow these guys some merit, they deserved some wins, OT and SO included, they can have something of their own. But this debate is not important for me, there are things going ugly elsewhere on this planet.

 

[nhlfan9191]

You've never heard of the term 'loser point'? I've seen it used plenty of times every day, are you sure you're unfamiliar with the notion?

Hate the loser point. They should’ve never started rewarding teams for losing. You should at least have to make it to a shootout if you’re going to run a system like that.

 

[admiralcadillac]

Hate the loser point. They should’ve never started rewarding teams for losing. You should at least have to make it to a shootout if you’re going to run a system like that.

What is the difference between making it to the shootout and making it 60 minutes of play? A couple more minutes of play?

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

What is the difference between making it to the shootout and making it 60 minutes of play? A couple more minutes of play?

For my point of view, 3 vs 3 doesn't look natural hockey, even if it's possible with 2 penalties each side going on. Usually it's 40 seconds of 3v3. But 3 vs 3 for 5 minutes is way different and looks like a different sport strategy. Puck possession, patience and better skilled players are important. It doesn't bring the most beautiful goals and more of who is the best shooter and who didn't make any mistake.

The SO is not really happening in regular 60 minutes games. Usually in a breakaway the shooter have a D skating just behind him. He can't use all the rink like they do, except in a penalty shot. For the prupose of the show, the SO is more exciting and have his amount of strategies. But it's not a team sport concept.

 

[LaP]

For my point of view, 3 vs 3 doesn't look natural hockey, even if it's possible with 2 penalties each side going on. Usually it's 40 seconds of 3v3. But 3 vs 3 for 5 minutes is way different and looks like a different sport strategy. Puck possession, patience and better skilled players are important. It doesn't bring the most beautiful goals and more of who is the best shooter and who didn't make any mistake.

The SO is not really happening in regular 60 minutes games. Usually in a breakaway the shooter have a D skating just behind him. He can't use all the rink like they do, except in a penalty shot. For the prupose of the show, the SO is more exciting and have his amount of strategies. But it's not a team sport concept.

Usually the teams winning in OT / SO a lot are good teams.

Most SO wins since 2021 :

Vegas 13 SO wins (113W 58L 22OT)
Wild 13 SO wins (109W 59L 22OT)
Preds 11 SO wins (102W 75L 15OT)
Avs 11 SO wins (123W 52L 16OT)
Stars 11 SO wins (108W 59L 23OT)
CH 11 SO wins (65W 107L 20OT)
LA 10 SO wins (107W 57L 25OT)

To me it indicates we have skills in this team (top 3) but no depth whatsoever. We can get to OT. And if we do our record is good. Since 2021 we have 12 OT wins, 11 SO wins and 20OT/SO losses. That's a positive record. We just don't have the depth (2nd line / 2nd pairing) and goalies to get on top at 5 v 5 hockey specially against the top teams. And it will not be possible to get this depth as long as we will be stuck with bad contracts. For now (until summer 2025) we should keep stacking picks and hope to land 1 or 2 game breaking talents while waiting for most of the bad contracts to be over.

 

[nhlfan9191]

What is the difference between making it to the shootout and making it 60 minutes of play? A couple more minutes of play?

Making it threw a tie during 60 minutes in the playoffs doesn’t reward you anything unless you win which is why I always had a problem when they added a loser point after the 2005 lockout and I’m not a fan of teams being rewarded for losing period. I’m also not a fan of games being decided by gimmicks. They made it worse in my opinion adding 3 on 3 in 2016. I’ll always prefer 4 on 4 which is a situation you can see in an actual game situation.

 

[DAChampion]

Making it threw a tie during 60 minutes in the playoffs doesn’t reward you anything unless you win which is why I always had a problem when they added a loser point after the 2005 lockout and I’m not a fan of teams being rewarded for losing period. I’m also not a fan of games being decided by gimmicks. They made it worse in my opinion adding 3 on 3 in 2016, but I’ll always prefer 4 on 4 which is a situation you can see in an actual game situation.

A benefit is that there's no point to double and triple OT in the regular season, it makes the players tired for no reason.

The problem is that some games give out 2 points and others give out 3 points. There is no competitive reason for games that go to OT to be considered more important. One solution would be to have a regulation win be worth 3 points, that way every single game would give out the same number of points.

Though there is a good business reason for the current system, it both makes the standings tighter and adds skill-independent random fluctuations to the standings.

 

[HuGort]

Never watched game but Boxscore suggest we ran into hot goalie.

 

[LaP]

Making it threw a tie during 60 minutes in the playoffs doesn’t reward you anything unless you win which is why I always had a problem when they added a loser point after the 2005 lockout and I’m not a fan of teams being rewarded for losing period. I’m also not a fan of games being decided by gimmicks. They made it worse in my opinion adding 3 on 3 in 2016. I’ll always prefer 4 on 4 which is a situation you can see in an actual game situation.

I assume you did not watch the dead puck era?

The current solution is not perfect but it's miles better than what we had before. Back in the days non skilled teams would start to play with 4 players depth in the defensive zone as soon as the middle of the game to push the game in OT. And then in OT they would keep playing with 4 players depth in the defensive zone to make sure to get one point. It was awful. Anything is better than that even Disney Mighty Ducks triple deke and flying v hockey.

 

[Rapala]

This team is dead last for 1st period goals have incredibly bad 2nd periods and are indeed forever chasing games.
Cap that with a league low 5 RW's it's very easy to talk about loser points when the team is hovering around that .500 Betteman level.

 

[LaP]

A benefit is that there's no point to double and triple OT in the regular season, it makes the players tired for no reason.

The problem is that some games give out 2 points and others give out 3 points. There is no competitive reason for games that go to OT to be considered more important. One solution would be to have a regulation win be worth 3 points, that way every single game would give out the same number of points.

Though there is a good business reason for the current system, it both makes the standings tighter and adds skill-independent random fluctuations to the standings.

I've been saying this for a while now. When people say this team having a record of 13-13-5 is playing for 500 this is factually wrong cause that team was involved in 3 points games. Basically the P% is calculated using a 2 points system but many games are 3 points games which means there's way too many teams over 500. 500 is not a thing anymore it's more like .533 is the new .500 or something like that.

A RW should be 3 points, OT and SO wins 2 points, OT or SO losses 1 point and RL 0 point. That way you could calculate the P% using a 3 points system and you would not need to have those RW, ROW and OT columns. The excuse for the 2 points system are stupid.

It's easier ... Not it's not since you have the RW, ROW and OT columns.​

It would skew past records ... Was not a problem when they increased the amount of games.​

 

[nhlfan9191]

I assume you did not watch the dead puck era?

The current solution is not perfect but it's miles better than what we had before. Back in the days non skilled teams would start to play with 4 players depth in the defensive zone as soon as the middle of the game to push the game in OT. And then in OT they would keep playing with 4 players depth in the defensive zone to make sure to get one point. It was awful. Anything is better than that even Disney Mighty Ducks triple deke and flying v hockey.

The dead puck era didn’t reward losers a point in overtime. You had to finish OT to get a point in a tie.

 

[the valiant effort]

When everyone joins me in turning games off after OT ends I am certain the NHL will remove shootouts #JoinTheFight

 

[sandviper]

Hate the loser point. They should’ve never started rewarding teams for losing. You should at least have to make it to a shootout if you’re going to run a system like that.

I agree with you but the issue of forcing teams to at least make it to SO I think will encourage a boring overtime with teams icing defensive players and rag the puck the whole OT.

What if regulation wins were 3 points? OT/SO losers get 1 and winner gets 2? This would also punish the winner sort of as it makes regulation wins more important.

 

[JianYang]

Usually the teams winning in OT / SO a lot are good teams.

Most SO wins since 2021 :

Vegas 13 SO wins (113W 58L 22OT)
Wild 13 SO wins (109W 59L 22OT)
Preds 11 SO wins (102W 75L 15OT)
Avs 11 SO wins (123W 52L 16OT)
Stars 11 SO wins (108W 59L 23OT)
CH 11 SO wins (65W 107L 20OT)
LA 10 SO wins (107W 57L 25OT)

To me it indicates we have skills in this team (top 3) but no depth whatsoever. We can get to OT. And if we do our record is good. Since 2021 we have 12 OT wins, 11 SO wins and 20OT/SO losses. That's a positive record. We just don't have the depth (2nd line / 2nd pairing) and goalies to get on top at 5 v 5 hockey specially against the top teams. And it will not be possible to get this depth as long as we will be stuck with bad contracts. For now (until summer 2025) we should keep stacking picks and hope to land 1 or 2 game breaking talents while waiting for most of the bad contracts to be over.

It's a correction for those 10 OT losses in a row that year where the Habs went to the final.

 

[LaP]

The dead puck era didn’t reward losers a point in overtime. You had to finish OT to get a point in a tie.

And then in OT they would keep playing with 4 players depth in the defensive zone to make sure to get one point.

That's what i said they would keep playing defense even in OT to get the point. They would play with 4 guys playing defense form the middle of the 2nd period to the end of the OT. That was god damn awful to watch.

 

[Rapala]

.533 is the new .500

Indeed which is why I dubbed it Betteman .500
As gimmick to give bad teams and their fan bases false hope.
I'm not sure how much effect it has on US markets though?

We'd have 32 points on a possibility of 84 using a 3-2-1 sysytem that would run about .380

 

[LaP]

Indeed which is why I dubbed it Betteman .500
As gimmick to give bad teams and their fan bases false hope.
I'm not sure how much effect it has on US markets though?

We'd have 32 points on a possibility of 84 using a 3-2-1 sysytem that would run about .380

Using a 3 pts system and using the P% to rank teams we would be 27th in the league :

27th Mtl .380 P%
28th Columbus .344 P%
29th Seattle .321 P%
30th Anaheim .320 P%
31st Chicago .320 P%
32nd SJ .297 P%

We have been doing well in OT and SO with 4 OT wins and 3 SO wins for a total of 7 wins in overtime which rank us 1st in the entire league. In the current system it gives us the full two points but it also gives the other teams one point so in reality it's not as good as a RW wins when you play against your conference but in term of P% and looking good it sure does wonder.

 

[Habssince89]

I don't mind the idea of being terrible and tanking if it fits with what we have on hand, but the reality is this team would be decently competitive if healthy, so we can take advantage of those injuries from a draft perspective, but unless even more guys get hurt I just can't see us catching the worst of the worst. Ultimately, this makes me cheer for wins because I know sooner or later they're going to be seldom. Might as well keep in the wildcard pack until we are left behind.