The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ImTellinTim
    YNWA
    • Sep 2006
    • 33028

    #121
    Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

    I guess Todd Richards absolutely lit into the Wild on Sunday at practice after Saturday night's 3-2 loss to Columbus. Apparently he didn't like their effort level. Several players had to be separated from each other and then they had a 20-minute straight bag skate. Jesus. Vancouver at home tonight. We'll see if they got the message.

    Comment

    • DrJones
      All Star
      • Mar 2003
      • 9114

      #122
      Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

      Originally posted by Money99
      Bingo! I hate the idea of 3 points for a win, but if they don't devalue a shootout win, something must be done.
      A team should be rewarded for actually attempting to win a game in the first 60 minutes.
      Here are my problems with the 3-point system:

      1. Fans/media/team officials still use point totals as (false) yardsticks. How many variations of "Washington's season was historic -- they had 121 points!" or "Nashville's a better team than you thought -- they had a 100-point season!" did we hear last season, as if those milestones still have meaning in an era where 11 teams have 100+ points and 23 out of 30 teams are "over .500". If the 3-point system comes into being, we'll be subjected to the Brian Burkes of the world angrily claim that the Leafs had an excellent season, because they had 110 points (even though they finished 10th in the East).

      2. Everyone assumes that teams will go all-out for regulation wins, and they will...against teams outside their own conference. Let's say it's a mid-season game, Dallas and Phoenix are tied 2-2, 5 minutes to play in the 3rd: Are the coaches thinking, "Gotta go for it, if we score here we gain 3 points on the other team!", or "If we take a chance and the other team scores, we lose 3 points to them in the standings! Maybe we'll play conservatively and see what happens..." Knowing NHL coaches, it's gonna be the latter, I'm afraid.

      3. It does nothing at all to encourage teams to score in OT rather than wait for the shootout.

      4. It doesn't get rid of the ****ING LOSER POINT!!!
      Last edited by DrJones; 10-19-2010, 01:20 PM.
      Originally posted by Thrash13
      Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
      Originally posted by slickdtc
      DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
      Originally posted by Kipnis22
      yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

      Comment

      • ImTellinTim
        YNWA
        • Sep 2006
        • 33028

        #123
        Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

        Originally posted by DrJones
        BTW, Ken Holland's idea to reduce shootouts by making OT four minutes of 4-on-4 followed by four minutes of 3-on-3 is stupid.

        It doesn't address the reason why so many are going to the shootout instead of being settled in overtime: many teams are playing conservatively 4-on-4 and are actively TRYING to reach the shootout. The answer is simple: reduce the value of shootout wins. The GM's already feel this way; that's why they removed shootout wins from the playoff tiebreakers but NOT overtime wins. If they had any balls, they'd make it official: 2 pts for regulation/OT wins, 1 pt for shootout wins, 0 pts for ANY loss.
        Or how about they just go back to what worked forever, not even go to a shootout, and award the points in a way that actually makes sense?

        I don't like 1 pt for a shootout win. So basically you're saying that a team that battles for 65 minutes and then loses the equivalent of a lottery scratch-off contest doesn't deserve anything? I hate, hate, hate the shootout. And the loser point for that matter. They are the bastard twins of the NHL.
        Last edited by ImTellinTim; 10-19-2010, 01:21 PM.

        Comment

        • DrJones
          All Star
          • Mar 2003
          • 9114

          #124
          Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

          Originally posted by ImTellinTim
          I guess Todd Richards absolutely lit into the Wild on Sunday at practice after Saturday night's 3-2 loss to Columbus. Apparently he didn't like their effort level. Several players had to be separated from each other and then they had a 20-minute straight bag skate. Jesus. Vancouver at home tonight. We'll see if they got the message.
          Minnesota's problem isn't their effort level. It's their talent level.
          Originally posted by Thrash13
          Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
          Originally posted by slickdtc
          DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
          Originally posted by Kipnis22
          yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

          Comment

          • ImTellinTim
            YNWA
            • Sep 2006
            • 33028

            #125
            Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

            Originally posted by DrJones
            Minnesota's problem isn't their effort level. It's their talent level.
            Clearly, Richards thinks his job is on the line if he doesn't get results. He's already hitting the panic button 4 games in.

            I didn't watch the game on Saturday, but by all accounts it was a pitiful display of losing just about every battle for a loose puck. You can be "out-talented", but to be out-hustled is something that can't happen with this team.

            Comment

            • slickdtc
              Grayscale
              • Aug 2004
              • 17125

              #126
              Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

              I don't like 1 pt for a shootout win. So basically you're saying that a team that battles for 65 minutes and then loses the equivalent of a lottery scratch-off contest doesn't deserve anything? I hate, hate, hate the shootout. And the loser point for that matter. They are the bastard twins of the NHL.
              DrJones formula eliminates the loser point. And if things aren't settled in 65 minutes, you penalize each team for not being able to find a winner by only awarding a point to whoever wins the shootout and none to the loser. It devalues the shootout (good) and values a reg/OT win while keeping ties out of the equation (also good) without giving out too many points (again, good). I really like DrJones idea, actually. My one change would be make it a 10 minute, 4 on 4 OT. I think that's how it should've always been... whoever decided a quarter of a period was long enough was off the mark. Half a period is long enough without being too long over the course of 82 games.
              NHL - Philadelphia Flyers
              NFL - Buffalo Bills
              MLB - Cincinnati Reds


              Originally posted by Money99
              And how does one levy a check that will result in only a slight concussion? Do they set their shoulder-pads to 'stun'?

              Comment

              • DrJones
                All Star
                • Mar 2003
                • 9114

                #127
                Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                Originally posted by ImTellinTim
                Or how about they just go back to what worked forever, not even go to a shootout, and award the points in a way that actually makes sense?
                Two reasons. 1. Because ticket prices aren't cheap. I don't want to pay $80 knowing that there's a 25% chance of a tie. 2. There are far too many coaches in the NHL who'd be delighted to play for a tie game in and game out.

                Originally posted by ImTellinTim
                I don't like 1 pt for a shootout win. So basically you're saying that a team that battles for 65 minutes and then loses the equivalent of a lottery scratch-off contest doesn't deserve anything?
                Correct. The reason there are so many shootouts is precisely BECAUSE it's a lottery scratch-off contest. Lots of teams WANT to get into shootouts because they feel they have a better chance on a coin-flip than they do playing actual hockey. How do you break teams from that habit? By making shootouts punitive for BOTH teams. By making it an undesirable situation. By making teams desperately want to avoid getting to a shootout.

                Originally posted by ImTellinTim
                I hate, hate, hate the shootout. And the loser point for that matter. They are the bastard twins of the NHL.
                I feel the same way, that's why I don't know why you'd disagree with my idea. It eliminates the loser point and would dramatically reduce the number of shootouts. Tied games near the end of regulation and in OT would be frantic, end-to-end action, as both teams realize that there's nothing to gain whatsoever from reaching a shootout. Yes, because of stellar goaltending, etc., there will still be a few shootouts here or there, but they'll be infrequent at best, while the excitement/tension level of close games will be ramped considerably. Win-win for fans of offensive hockey.
                Originally posted by Thrash13
                Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
                Originally posted by slickdtc
                DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
                Originally posted by Kipnis22
                yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

                Comment

                • DrJones
                  All Star
                  • Mar 2003
                  • 9114

                  #128
                  Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                  Originally posted by slickdtc
                  My one change would be make it a 10 minute, 4 on 4 OT. I think that's how it should've always been... whoever decided a quarter of a period was long enough was off the mark. Half a period is long enough without being too long over the course of 82 games.
                  I'll sign off on this. 10 minutes of 4-on-4, knowing that if you don't score, you'll receive a point at best? Hello, end-to-end action. Bye-bye, shootouts. They'd become so rare that they'd be kinda novel when they did occur.
                  Originally posted by Thrash13
                  Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
                  Originally posted by slickdtc
                  DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
                  Originally posted by Kipnis22
                  yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

                  Comment

                  • ImTellinTim
                    YNWA
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 33028

                    #129
                    Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                    Originally posted by DrJones

                    I feel the same way, that's why I don't know why you'd disagree with my idea. It eliminates the loser point and would dramatically reduce the number of shootouts. Tied games near the end of regulation and in OT would be frantic, end-to-end action, as both teams realize that there's nothing to gain whatsoever from reaching a shootout. Yes, because of stellar goaltending, etc., there will still be a few shootouts here or there, but they'll be infrequent at best, while the excitement/tension level of close games will be ramped considerably. Win-win for fans of offensive hockey.
                    Because it still includes a shootout. I don't understand the North American obsession with having to crown a winner of every single regular season game. If a coach wants to play for a tie, that's his choice. It's part of the strategy. I don't know why they can't just skate to a tie after OT, agree that neither team was better, share the points, and move on. I guess I just see it differently than the casual fan. When I buy tickets to college hockey game here, I don't think to myself, "boy I hope this doesn't end in a tie". I go to watch the game because I love the sport. I think true NHL fans look at it the same way instead of whining that no one won the game. What the hell is wrong with a defensive battle? Those games can be more entertaining at times because goals are more meaningful. But ESPN has trained everyone that we need HIGHLIGHTS and SPECTACULAR GAME WINNERS - WIN WIN WIN!!!

                    Comment

                    • DrJones
                      All Star
                      • Mar 2003
                      • 9114

                      #130
                      Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                      Originally posted by ImTellinTim
                      Because it still includes a shootout. I don't understand the North American obsession with having to crown a winner of every single regular season game. If a coach wants to play for a tie, that's his choice. It's part of the strategy. I don't know why they can't just skate to a tie after OT, agree that neither team was better, share the points, and move on. I guess I just see it differently than the casual fan. When I buy tickets to college hockey game here, I don't think to myself, "boy I hope this doesn't end in a tie". I go to watch the game because I love the sport. I think true NHL fans look at it the same way instead of whining that no one won the game. What the hell is wrong with a defensive battle? Those games can be more entertaining at times because goals are more meaningful. But ESPN has trained everyone that we need HIGHLIGHTS and SPECTACULAR GAME WINNERS - WIN WIN WIN!!!
                      I don't buy the casual fan argument. I live in Canada and don't get ESPN. Considering the hundreds of games seen live and thousands seen on TV since the 1980-81 season and the years I spent working on EA's NHL series, I don't consider myself a "casual" fan by any means. Yet I'll gladly put up with a small number of shootouts each year if it means getting rid of teams' insistence on "hanging on" for something, whether it be a tie, a loser point, or a shootout coinflip.

                      I really hope by "defensive battles", you're not defending the Dead Puck Era, because I'm sick of it being romanticized. 1-0 games with shot totals of 19-15 and icings every 30 seconds were not compelling to me. I dare anyone to rewatch all 7 games of the 2003 Stanley Cup Final and try to defend it as entertainment. Or as hockey, for that matter.

                      I also don't believe that actively playing for a tie should be a valid strategy. If teams were legitimately trying to win and stalemated after 60 (or 65) minutes, than so be it. But that's not what was happening. Why bother playing the game at all if you're not going to try to win? Why not draw straws at the beginning of the game instead?

                      NHL coaches are by-and-large an extremely conservative lot, and need lots of prodding to change. Regular-season OT was first introduced in 1983 because too many teams were playing for ties. The loser point and 4-on-4 format was first introduced in 1999 because too few teams were trying were trying to score in OT. The shootout was first introduced in 2005 because STILL too few teams were trying to score in OT. As long as there's a safety net, teams will gravitate towards it, and that's bad for fans, both hardcore and casual. My solution: eliminate the safety net!
                      Originally posted by Thrash13
                      Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.
                      Originally posted by slickdtc
                      DrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.
                      Originally posted by Kipnis22
                      yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your post

                      Comment

                      • metallicatz
                        Banned
                        • Sep 2003
                        • 1869

                        #131
                        Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                        I can't imagine why anybody would ever romanticize the Dead Puck Era. It almost killed the game and was about as exciting to watch as a Golden Girls marathon. There was literally nothing good about it.

                        I like the shootout just fine.
                        Last edited by metallicatz; 10-19-2010, 05:38 PM.

                        Comment

                        • ImTellinTim
                          YNWA
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 33028

                          #132
                          Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                          Originally posted by DrJones
                          I really hope by "defensive battles", you're not defending the Dead Puck Era, because I'm sick of it being romanticized. 1-0 games with shot totals of 19-15 and icings every 30 seconds were not compelling to me. I dare anyone to rewatch all 7 games of the 2003 Stanley Cup Final and try to defend it as entertainment. Or as hockey, for that matter.
                          You know with the way the game is called these days that we're never going back to that.

                          Don't get me wrong, your idea is better than it is now, but I cannot support the idea of the shootout. I think it's manufactured garbage.

                          Comment

                          • TheMatrix31
                            RF
                            • Jul 2002
                            • 52928

                            #133
                            Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                            The whole "we need a winner" thing is just to have a conclusion. I don't know, for me, having one winner is great.

                            I agree with the 10 min, 4 on 4 setup. It'll be quicker, more likely to score within that time frame, and it will be less likely a game goes to shootout. I don't care for the loser point, but I don't know, it DOES suck to go all that way then not get anything because you lose on a shootout.

                            Comment

                            • ImTellinTim
                              YNWA
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 33028

                              #134
                              Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                              Wild went down 1 minute in, but have responded with 2 goals in 1:20 and are outshooting Vancouver 7-2. Good response.

                              Comment

                              • tyler289
                                MVP
                                • Jul 2006
                                • 2933

                                #135
                                Re: The Official 2010-11 Regular Season Talk Thread

                                Vintage Thomas tonight.

                                Comment

                                Working...