I don't understand. You're not incentivized in trying to win if you get 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? There are no ties in hockey anymore so you either win or you lose. If you get 0 points for a loss, I'd think you're even MORE incentivized to go for the win because getting 2 is way, way better than getting 0.
In the old system teams would sit back because a tie guaranteed them a point. If they went for a win but something bad happened the other way, they'd lose and end up with 0. So they were very conservative in order to earn that point. Now you can be more aggressive and still get that point even if you lose. Think about a game against a division rival - the Habs or whatever. Do you want to risk them getting 2 points while you get 0? Hell no. 1-1 is way better than 0-2. But now, you can't lose 2 points to the team you are playing - you only lose a single point.
Yeah I get why the system was changed to its current iteration from the old "we can get a point for a tie" situation. But that's not what I'm talking about. Now, in today's NHL, you can't tie. Every game results in a win or a loss. So why have one point for an overtime loss? Why not just have 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss? You're very much incentivized to win the game because there's no tie to fall back on. Play 4-on-4 to have the game be wide open and teams know that if they don't win, they get zip.
And if it goes to a shootout you still get zip? Feels harsh.
Because they decide these games with a skills competition. Losing in 3 on 3 or a shootout shouldn't be equal to losing in regulation.
Again, losing/winning via gimmick shootout would be recognized the same way as winning in regulation. That does not seem right.
Well in the World Cup teams advance in the knockout stage by penalty kick shootout all the time. It works for them. A win is a win is a win.
The world cup penalty solution sucks but the difference with hockey is line changes vs having to keep the same 11 on the pitch. You can’t just keep the game going until someone scores. Everyone would just collapse.
Understood. My point stands. Lots of sports have weird rules for extra periods of play yet a win counts the same in either case.
As I have written, I think hockey should just be a tie and 1 point to each team if tied after 3 periods.
Or they could allow two subs for each 30 minute overtime period.
If Pat Falloon comes back, he is going to be grey and old. And we probably don't want him walking through that door anyways...
Whoops. I even looked up the spelling of his last name. Maroon it is.If Pat Falloon comes back, he is going to be grey and old. And we probably don't want him walking through that door anyways...
Perhaps Pat Maroon would be a better fit
Would need to eliminate the shootout gimmick, which creates other problems.
Because it's objectively a shitty way to award a full win. I would be happier with the W-L-T with a 7 minute 3-on-3 OT. But people love the shootout for some reason, so I realize I'm just yelling at clouds.
I think you need to look to soccer for why continuous sudden death OT year-round is a bad thing. In hockey, it’s the same problem: you really can’t have a schedule as dense as they have with games potentially lasting more than 3 hours in search of a winner (and if you’re really concerned with style of play in OT, tell the teams that ANY mistake might cost them the game, because I guarantee you’ll see tons of super-conservative strategies like the 1-3-1 in hockey or parking the bus in soccer). Soccer decided that for pool/home-and-away play, ties were acceptable, while in knockouts, 30 minutes of OT, and if that’s not enough, the coin flip of PKs will do. Hockey (and really just the NA pro/junior leagues here), OTOH, decided that the coin flips were acceptable in the regular season, but continuous sudden death OT was what had to be done in the playoffs.
Now that the Bruins have surpassed the Habs' hallowed single season points record, the NHL should be all for a new point scoring system.
There are probably some crusty old farts worried about "records" if teams could suddenly get 3 points for a win.
You are probably right but I don't love it. I think they become too lumbering and immobile. I think they can only play 1 of Wotherspoon and Peeke and Wotherspoon has been better across the board.
I think he might've hit some kind of wall. And while JVR does theoretically help the offense, I think Lauko, despite the size difference, might be a more physical player. That's something they seem to want/need in the playoffs.
Because shootouts are completely ridiculous. 3-3 barely less so. The loser point recognizes this, while also providing timely finality. You’ve offered nothing but status quo bias in support of your position. This is just a different—yet similarly arbitrary—way of effecting certain motivations.
To my eye Peeke has been much more mobile than I anticipated he was based on reports. I think he's more mobile than Carlo. Just about every game he's made a few plays where I think he might get stuck but he's able to find a way out of whatever jam he's in. Personally I want both Peeke and Wotherspoon in the lineup every game if healthy. I'd rotate Grz and Shattenkirk based on matchups and health.
Small Sample size I know, but for those who don't like the eye test I tried to pull the average game score for Bruins D. Granted small sample size for Peeke but the numbers back up the eye test for how he's looked so far. I can't figure out how to link the picture here, but through stat cards he has the second best average game score for the B's D at 0.76.
I'm not sure I agree with Fluto. I don't think they're going to stash Richard down in Providence and then suddenly call him up for the playoffs. They certainly sent him down for asset management reasons prior to the trade deadline but I think they would've called him up by now if he was a legitimate playoff option. Basically what they've done with Beecher. Richard also has a 36.64% xGF%, lowest on the team. He's got some wheels but I'm not sure I'd consider his 9-game game run as good. He's taxi squad material for me but well behind Maroon, Lauko, Beecher, JVR, etc.
Did I hear Sean say on the Saturday broadcast that Monty is going to rotate them in the playoffs unlike last year?
None of this matters. Last year's team went 15-1 in their last 16.
I would argue that this really makes the point that regular season results really don’t matter in the playoffs. They lost series because when Florida got desperate down 3-1, the Bruins really couldn’t stop them from scoring. That kind of urgency just does not exist in the regular season, or even early in a playoff series. It’s why teams come back from 3-0 and 3-1 deficits in the NHL much more than they do in the NBA or MLB.
The question I've been asking for years is how to address the bolded. We all know that the playoffs are an entirely different game but it seems that no one has any clear idea about how to adequately prepare for them. Monty in particular completely fell apart in the playoffs last year.
totally agree. I was just being an ass with that comment quite frankly. Great point about urgency by the way...
I think that the organization thinks that they need to get a little tougher back there around the crease given the moves that they made. The problem is that a lot of those guys that are physical players with the ability to clear the crease are bad at moving the puck. So it’s a delicate balance. Bottom line is it’s really hard to win in the playoffs. You need skill, toughness, goaltending, puck luck, officiating luck, injury luck.
I heard on the local news last night that Monty hasn't decided if they will rotate but if they do rotate he will only rotate for games 1-4 then pick a G to ride based on performance.
I’d be OK with this. Monty completely fell apart last year - the decision to not start Swayman in game 6 is the type of move that should cost someone their job (if they hadn’t just had the best regular season in his first year on the job).
