Tracking the Improbable...

Mayersfan21 · Post by **Mayersfan21** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:17 am

BBZ=Opti-Mist? Ok- we knew this wasn't going to happen but the Bettman Points for losers program needs to stop.

They brought out how ludicrous this is on the radio the other day.

Go to extra innings in Baseball= Pick up a 1/2 game

OT in BBALL>? get points....

It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.

OS · Post by OS » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:22 am

Mayersfan21 wrote:BBZ=Opti-Mist? Ok- we knew this wasn't going to happen but the Bettman Points for losers program needs to stop.

They brought out how ludicrous this is on the radio the other day.

Go to extra innings in Baseball= Pick up a 1/2 game

OT in BBALL>? get points....

It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.

You don't really think that the NHL is the first one to implement such a system do you?

BringBackZezel · Post by **BringBackZezel** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:39 am

Mayersfan21 wrote:BBZ=Opti-Mist? Ok- we knew this wasn't going to happen but the Bettman Points for losers program needs to stop.

They brought out how ludicrous this is on the radio the other day.

Go to extra innings in Baseball= Pick up a 1/2 game

OT in BBALL>? get points....

It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.

what makes the most sense is 3 points for a win, 2 for an OTW and 1 for an OTL.

And to the traditionalists who have an issue with this, I say piss off.

OS · Post by OS » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:41 am

BringBackZezel wrote:what makes the most sense is 3 points for a win, 2 for an OTW and 1 for an OTL.

And to the traditionalists who have an issue with this, I say piss off.

I say let's do it... for no reason other than pissing off Canadian hockey fans.

Rocketpop · Post by **Rocketpop** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:47 am

OS wrote:
BringBackZezel wrote:what makes the most sense is 3 points for a win, 2 for an OTW and 1 for an OTL.

And to the traditionalists who have an issue with this, I say piss off.
I say let's do it... for no reason other than pissing off Canadian hockey fans.

2 points for a win
1 Point for an OT or Shootout Win
0 points for a loss of any kind.

Lets make it even more convoluted
3 for a win
2 for an OT win
1 For a SO Win
0 for any loss

4 for a win
3 for an OT Win
2 for a SO win
1 for an OT / SO Loss
0 for a regulation loss.

Rocketpop · Post by **Rocketpop** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:50 am

Mayersfan21 wrote:BBZ=Opti-Mist? Ok- we knew this wasn't going to happen but the Bettman Points for losers program needs to stop.

They brought out how ludicrous this is on the radio the other day.

Go to extra innings in Baseball= Pick up a 1/2 game

OT in BBALL>? get points....

It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.

But there are no ties, shootouts, or sudden death in baseball or basketball, therefore your argument is invalid.

If they just played until there was a winner in Hockey, even with sudden death, nobody would be talking about the "Extra points" system.

BringBackZezel · Post by **BringBackZezel** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:51 am

Rocketpop wrote:
OS wrote:
BringBackZezel wrote:what makes the most sense is 3 points for a win, 2 for an OTW and 1 for an OTL.

And to the traditionalists who have an issue with this, I say piss off.
I say let's do it... for no reason other than pissing off Canadian hockey fans.
2 points for a win
1 Point for an OT or Shootout Win
0 points for a loss of any kind.

Lets make it even more convoluted
3 for a win
2 for an OT win
1 For a SO Win
0 for any loss

4 for a win
3 for an OT Win
2 for a SO win
1 for an OT / SO Loss
0 for a regulation loss.

That's getting too complicated.

With the 3 points system, there are always 3 points handed out in every game.

BringBackZezel · Post by **BringBackZezel** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:52 am

Rocketpop wrote:But there are no ties, shootouts, or sudden death in baseball or basketball, therefore your argument is invalid.

If they just played until there was a winner in Hockey, even with sudden death, nobody would be talking about the "Extra points" system.

If they just played until there was a winner in the regular season, nobody would be healthy enough to play in the playoffs.

There's no way that teams could man an 82 game season AND a 2 month playoff run when you could play 200 minutes of hockey every other night.

Mayersfan21 · Post by **Mayersfan21** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:03 am

OS wrote:
Mayersfan21 wrote:BBZ=Opti-Mist? Ok- we knew this wasn't going to happen but the Bettman Points for losers program needs to stop.

They brought out how ludicrous this is on the radio the other day.

Go to extra innings in Baseball= Pick up a 1/2 game

OT in BBALL>? get points....

It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.
You don't really think that the NHL is the first one to implement such a system do you?

Your lofty interrogatives are always popular and come off as extremely arrogant.

GAME=GAME

Does that help with my intention? (lofty interrogative)

I want every game to be worth the same. Why should one team have the opportunity to have 3x82=246 pts and another team who wins every game in regulation get 164 pts?

kodos · Post by **kodos** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:04 am

How about this crazy idea.

2 points for a win. 0 points for a loss.

THE END.

Aode · Post by **Aode** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:35 am

kodos wrote:How about this crazy idea.

2 points for a win. 0 points for a loss.

THE END.

They tried that- overtime was boring as hell with one man rushes per team and the game always ending in a tie or (in this case with the current rules) a shootout, which would be far less entertaining because overtime had been so god awfully boring...

I'd venture so far to say if the score was tied, the "overtime style" of play would start with like 5/10 minutes to go in the third period- teams would play ultra-conservative to make sure they don't get scored on and keep 3-4 men back.

That isn't hockey, it's watching one or two guys try to rush the neutral zone and turn it over...

Aode · Post by **Aode** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:36 am

_Gassoff wrote:
BringBackZezel wrote:Update:

Record to make the playoffs based on current paces:
16-0-1
Oh heck. Let's do it.

..... so you're saying there's a chance?

kodos · Post by **kodos** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:43 am

Aode wrote:
kodos wrote:How about this crazy idea.

2 points for a win. 0 points for a loss.

THE END.
They tried that- overtime was boring as hell with one man rushes per team and the game always ending in a tie or (in this case with the current rules) a shootout, which would be far less entertaining because overtime had been so god awfully boring...

I'd venture so far to say if the score was tied, the "overtime style" of play would start with like 5/10 minutes to go in the third period- teams would play ultra-conservative to make sure they don't get scored on and keep 3-4 men back.

That isn't hockey, it's watching one or two guys try to rush the neutral zone and turn it over...

So get rid of overtime and go right to the shootout. Or go back to the tie. I miss the tie.

The extra point is retarded. I would gladly take 2 teams playing conservatively over giving the loser a point. It makes overtime games 50% more valuable than games that end in regulation and that is just plain stupid.

Aode · Post by **Aode** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:49 am

kodos wrote:
Aode wrote:
kodos wrote:How about this crazy idea.

2 points for a win. 0 points for a loss.

THE END.
They tried that- overtime was boring as hell with one man rushes per team and the game always ending in a tie or (in this case with the current rules) a shootout, which would be far less entertaining because overtime had been so god awfully boring...

I'd venture so far to say if the score was tied, the "overtime style" of play would start with like 5/10 minutes to go in the third period- teams would play ultra-conservative to make sure they don't get scored on and keep 3-4 men back.

That isn't hockey, it's watching one or two guys try to rush the neutral zone and turn it over...
So get rid of overtime and go right to the shootout. Or go back to the tie. I miss the tie.

The extra point is retarded. I would gladly take 2 teams playing conservatively over giving the loser a point. It makes overtime games 50% more valuable than games that end in regulation and that is just plain stupid.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I feel totally opposite. No sport should have ties I think and the only way to keep overtime interesting is to make sure that teams will shoot for getting an extra point instead of risking one they COULD have.

I love fast paced and frantic hockey and the current overtime 4 on 4 is amazing.

The third point inflates the standings- sure, but the rules apply to everyone so its every teams' benefit/curse.

sanscrit · Post by **sanscrit** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:04 pm

Do what the world cup does.

0 points for a loss
1 point for a tie
3 points for a win

if the NHL still wants to give out free points for OT/SO losses, then make regulation wins 3, OT/SO win 2, OT/SO loss 1, regulation loss 0.

however, that would make your record looks something like 20-8-3-9, which is stupid, so stick with idea 1.

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:01 pm

BringBackZezel wrote:Update:

99 points to make the playoffs.
17 games remaining.
33 points needed

Record to make the playoffs based on current paces:
16-0-1

Want to lay a friendly wager that it doesnt take 99 pts to get into the playoffs?

For Calgary to get to 99 pts they will have to win all their games against non playoff, playoff teams with 10 or more pts than them (Nash, Det, Van,Anaheim) and non conference teams and take 4 pts from the playoff contenders with similar pts in the standings (Sharks, Wild x3, Stars). They have 9 of 17 games against in conference playoff teams left and 79 pts.

* they play the Blues twice

For Minnesota to make it to 99 pts they will have to win all but one of their games against non conference and non playoff teams. They have 5 of 17 games against in conference Playoff teams (sharks, Flames x3, vancouver) and 79 pts.

* they play the Blues twice

The Sharks & Stars have 5 & 6 games respectively against inconference Playoff bound teams. And only the Stars play the blues again this year. I personally think that the Stars have the easiest road to 99 pts, but I dont think that 99 will be the minimum to make it into the playoffs.

Someone posted this over at the Stltoday board that only 5 teams have gained ground on the blues since AM took over Vancouver +4pts, Detroit +5pts, Nashville +6pts, Ottawa +2pts, New Jersey +3pts (they are 21-10-6 since Dec. 11).

2pts separate 5 to 8th spot in the standings, everyone of those teams will not make 99 pts.

-mehop- · Post by **-mehop-** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:09 pm

Mayersfan21 wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It just doesn't make any sense. I can live with regular season SOs to keep with the TV scheduling etc. but please do away with OTL- it makes no sense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The only reason they do the OT point is because as retarded as the shootout already is, it would be one million times worse if a team lost because of it after playing a full 60.

-MEHOP-

BringBackZezel · Post by **BringBackZezel** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:16 am

bamabluesfan wrote:
BringBackZezel wrote:Update:

99 points to make the playoffs.
17 games remaining.
33 points needed

Record to make the playoffs based on current paces:
16-0-1
Want to lay a friendly wager that it doesnt take 99 pts to get into the playoffs?

For Calgary to get to 99 pts they will have to win all their games against non playoff, playoff teams with 10 or more pts than them (Nash, Det, Van,Anaheim) and non conference teams and take 4 pts from the playoff contenders with similar pts in the standings (Sharks, Wild x3, Stars). They have 9 of 17 games against in conference playoff teams left and 79 pts.

* they play the Blues twice

For Minnesota to make it to 99 pts they will have to win all but one of their games against non conference and non playoff teams. They have 5 of 17 games against in conference Playoff teams (sharks, Flames x3, vancouver) and 79 pts.

* they play the Blues twice

The Sharks & Stars have 5 & 6 games respectively against inconference Playoff bound teams. And only the Stars play the blues again this year. I personally think that the Stars have the easiest road to 99 pts, but I dont think that 99 will be the minimum to make it into the playoffs.

Someone posted this over at the Stltoday board that only 5 teams have gained ground on the blues since AM took over Vancouver +4pts, Detroit +5pts, Nashville +6pts, Ottawa +2pts, New Jersey +3pts (they are 21-10-6 since Dec. 11).

2pts separate 5 to 8th spot in the standings, everyone of those teams will not make 99 pts.

I already have my money staked on this year's NHL season.

And I was never suggesting that all teams would have 99 points in the WC playoffs.

I was simply saying that based on current averages and tiebreakers, the Blues would need 99 points to make the playoffs.

As of this morning, Minnesota is on pace to finish with 97 points for the 8th spot in the WC. They have 8 more wins than the Blues, meaning they have the #1 tiebreaker, so the Blues would need to finish with 98 points to get in. With 16 games remaining, they could theoretically get to 98 points.

If they finished 15-0-1, they'd have 97 points and a record of 43-28-11. For the Blues to take the tiebreaker against a Minnesota team with 97 points, Minnesota would have to have to go 6-3-6 in their last 15 games to finish 42-27-13.

So realistically, the Blues are so far behind in the tiebreaker for the 8th spot, they would need one more point than the current 8th average to get in....

As of today, and based on averages, they would need 98 points to get into the playoffs. 16-0-0, here we come!

bamabluesfan · Post by **bamabluesfan** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:46 am

Well I think even the organization realizes where they are, when they added King & Backes to the Peoria playoff rosters that should have told anyone still harboring hopes of them making the SCPO's that the season is done.

I think that it will be Calgary that ends up in the 90 to 94 range.

And for the record while they arent mathmatically eliminated, I think we all know the blues arent making it in this year.

Tezmyster · Post by **Tezmyster** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:51 am

Ladder @ 8th Mar:

6th: Dallas : 81 points : 17 games remaining
7th: Calgary : 81 points : 16 games remaining
8th: Minnesota : 79 points : 15 games remaining
9th: Colorado : 73 points : 14 games remaining
10th: St Louis : 66 points : 16 games remaining
11th: Edmonton : 66 points : 15 games remaining

Today's games of significance:

Minnesota @ Boston
Dallas @ St Louis
Calgary @ Nashville