What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

>>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

jflory81 said:
Blech. They better not go to loser points.
Click to expand...
The 3-point system didn't come into effect in the pros until the shootout was implemented and ties were eliminated. So I don't think AHA will go there just yet.
Although I absolutely hate the concept of skills competitions deciding "winners" and "losers" of real games (at least as it impacts standings or playoff advancement), if they go to those lengths to eliminate ties, the third point is a bit of a consolation to reward teams that battle their butts off through 60 minutes of real action to earn a tie but happened to lose the ridiculous shootout or the reduced man-power OT. Again, I don't like anything about that part of pro hockey, but as long as we have to put up with the abomination, at least there is some consolation for the teams that didn't actually "lose" the actual hockey game, really (except for OT, of course. But 5-on-5 OT was seldom decided in 5 minutes). That's my take on why I don't agree with the term "Loser Point". Teams don't get points for losing, they get a point for finishing the game tied. The unnecessary point is the OT/shootout win point, IMO.
I just don't understand why hockey leagues are so against the concept of a tie. What is so wrong about that?
 
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

TigerFan86-87 said:
The 3-point system didn't come into effect in the pros until the shootout was implemented and ties were eliminated. So I don't think AHA will go there just yet.
Although I absolutely hate the concept of skills competitions deciding "winners" and "losers" of real games (at least as it impacts standings or playoff advancement), if they go to those lengths to eliminate ties, the third point is a bit of a consolation to reward teams that battle their butts off through 60 minutes of real action to earn a tie but happened to lose the ridiculous shootout or the reduced man-power OT. Again, I don't like anything about that part of pro hockey, but as long as we have to put up with the abomination, at least there is some consolation for the teams that didn't actually "lose" the actual hockey game, really (except for OT, of course. But 5-on-5 OT was seldom decided in 5 minutes). That's my take on why I don't agree with the term "Loser Point". Teams don't get points for losing, they get a point for finishing the game tied. The unnecessary point is the OT/shootout win point, IMO.
I just don't understand why hockey leagues are so against the concept of a tie. What is so wrong about that?
Click to expand...

Technically, the three-point system is when you get three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win, and one point for an overtime loss. Thus, you get rewarded for winning without a gimmicky overtime system. The entire game is worth three points total for both teams in the standings whether it goes OT or not.

What the NHL has is not a three-point system. What they have is a loser point. The game is worth two points or three points depending on whether it goes OT. It is mathematically extremely unfair.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Russell Jaslow said:
Technically, the three-point system is when you get three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win, and one point for an overtime loss. Thus, you get rewarded for winning without a gimmicky overtime system. The entire game is worth three points total for both teams in the standings whether it goes OT or not.

What the NHL has is not a three-point system. What they have is a loser point. The game is worth two points or three points depending on whether it goes OT. It is mathematically extremely unfair.
Click to expand...

I get all that. Just used the term "3-point system" to avoid calling it a "loser point".
Yes, it is unfair that not all games are worth the same number of points, but leagues are afraid that their fans are too mathematically challenged to figure out an actual 3-point system (or the ultimately fair 5-point system the HEA used briefly). It is more complicated to decipher the standings than what used to exist, but to me much more straightforward than what they use now. But that's just me. I'm a stats dork.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

I agree the international-style 3-point system is ideal. I even (gasp) like it better than a flat 2-point system.

3x3 is miles better than a shootout, but I don't know if it makes for good hockey outside of the pro ranks.


Powers &8^]
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

LtPowers said:
I agree the international-style 3-point system is ideal. I even (gasp) like it better than a flat 2-point system.

3x3 is miles better than a shootout, but I don't know if it makes for good hockey outside of the pro ranks.


Powers &8^]
Click to expand...

I am not sure if I like the 3 point system. It creates a wider spread between the rankings. It is more fun to have a loser point and keep more teams in the running until later in the season. Just my $.02

The CJHL used 3x3 last year and it was fun to watch. I am certain the college teams can make it exciting.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Tom Naeger said:
Wayne Wilson on the radio saying that AHA will try 3 on 3 OT after a 5 on 5 OT period next season...
Click to expand...

The official announcement will be this week, including which standings format the league's athletic directors have voted for.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

woodenskates said:
I am not sure if I like the 3 point system. It creates a wider spread between the rankings. It is more fun to have a loser point and keep more teams in the running until later in the season. Just my $.02

The CJHL used 3x3 last year and it was fun to watch. I am certain the college teams can make it exciting.
Click to expand...

Eh. I think it only appears to make a bigger difference in the standings, because you're getting bigger chunks for every win.

Basically, if you're 9 points back, it would be the equivalent of 6 points in the old system. 3 wins and 3 losses from the other team still gets you caught up. Loser points can actually make it more difficult to catch up, because there can be games where two teams ahead of you are playing, and one gets the full allotment of points while the other still gets half the available points. In a system that hands out the same amount of points per night, a point earned by one of those teams is by definition a point lost by the other one. As long as you are gaining full points from your games, you will catch up quicker in the 3 point system than the loser point system.
 
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

jflory81 said:
Eh. I think it only appears to make a bigger difference in the standings, because you're getting bigger chunks for every win.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

woodenskates said:
It is more fun to have a loser point and keep more teams in the running until later in the season. Just my $.02.
Click to expand...

fivethirtyeight.com mathematically proved this to be a falsehood.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Myles Powell has signed with the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Penguins of the AHL. I'm disappointed he won't be with the Amerks, but I'm happy to see him get another shot in the AHL. He'll get to play with Matt Abt as well. The Penguins play the Amerks in Rochester on December 11th. I'll definitely be going to that game if they're both still on the team.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Russell Jaslow said:
fivethirtyeight.com mathematically proved this to be a falsehood.
Click to expand...

Two other things about the loser point as I'm looking through some old articles on the above mentioned site.

1) It encourages teams to play for OT. This has produced lackluster hockey in the third period of close games, as both teams know they are guaranteed to get one point if they go to OT. So, why risk going for a win and exposing yourself to a loss instead, especially when there is no extra reward to win in regulation (i.e., get three points instead of two)? "Goal scoring falls dramatically in the third period of tied games, right when a game should be coming to its climax." Basically, teams play not to win in order to make the playoffs:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-make-the-playoffs-hockey-teams-play-not-to-win/

2) Despite what I wrote in my original post, the loser point did change the identity of the 2012 Stanley Cup champion, the Los Angeles Kings. The only reason they made the playoffs (remember, they were the last team in that year) was because of the loser point. Their record was 40-42 while Dallas' record was 42-40. However, LA got 15 loser points while Dallas only had five. How someone can justify a team with a worse record being ahead of a team with a better record is beyond me.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Russell Jaslow said:
2) Despite what I wrote in my original post, the loser point did change the identity of the 2012 Stanley Cup champion, the Los Angeles Kings. The only reason they made the playoffs (remember, they were the last team in that year) was because of the loser point. Their record was 40-42 while Dallas' record was 42-40. However, LA got 15 loser points while Dallas only had five. How someone can justify a team with a worse record being ahead of a team with a better record is beyond me.
Click to expand...
That's true to a point, but (like it or not - I don't) the "loser point" system is not counting all losses the same. Some still don't see a SO (or OT for a few) loss as being a real "loss", hence the award of the single point prior to OT. LA had a lot of those that season, if I remember correctly. The "loser point" did not alter the standings, the league rules did. According to the NHL rules, LA had a better record than Dallas (whether it makes us want to vomit or not). Dallas' record only looks better because you grouped all losses together into one column.
Even if there was the old 2-points for a win, 0-points for a loss system in place, there's no guarantee that the records would have looked as you list them here. As you pointed out, the point system in place likely affects the way games are played. There's no way to know for sure how the individual games would have turned out, and therefore how the standings would have shaken out in the end. It's impossible to say for sure that Dallas would have finished above LA in the standings that way either.
 
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Brad McGowan has signed with HC Gherdëina of the Alps Hockey League (Italy, Austria, Slovenia), which is the top tier league in that area.

It's great to see a lot of former Tigers continuing their professional career. Other former Tigers that played professionally last year but haven't signed with anyone yet: Steve Pinizzotto, Josh Mitchell, Caleb Cameron, Todd Skirving, Danny Smith, Brady Norrish, Max Mikowski, and Abbott Girduckis.
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Well the new overtime rules are official.

Long story short: 3 points available per game. All 3 to the winner if won in regulation or during the 1st overtime (which is still 5 minutes, 5-on-5).

If the game is tied after the 5-on-5 overtime, 1 point is awarded to each team. Then they will play a 3-on-3 overtime, and if it's still tied after that, a shootout. The winner gets the extra point.

It all seems pretty silly to me, but I suppose I'm more of a "traditionalist". I guess most people don't really appreciate a good old fashioned "hard fought tie".
 
Last edited:
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Haaafs said:
Well the new overtime rules are official.

Long story short: 3 points available per game. All 3 to the winner if won in regulation or during the 1st overtime (which is still 5 minutes, 5-on-5).

If the game is tied after the 5-on-5 overtime, 1 point is awarded to each team. Then they will play a 3-on-3 overtime, and if it's still tied after that, a shootout. The winner gets the extra point.

It all seems pretty silly to me, but I suppose I'm more of a "traditionalist". I guess most people don't really appreciate a good old fashioned "hard fought tie".
Click to expand...

I'm glad they went to that point system once they decided to go beyond the 5x5 overtime.

I don't mind the 3x3.

I don't need the shootout. Especially since it will eat into my drinking time... :D
 
Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Re: >>> RIT Tigers Offseason: Looking forward to more in 2019-20 <<<

Russell Jaslow said:
I'm glad they went to that point system once they decided to go beyond the 5x5 overtime.

I don't mind the 3x3.

I don't need the shootout. Especially since it will eat into my drinking time... :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the best possible point system if they insist on no ties. Still don't love the shootout, but at least there's a couple of OT periods to give teams a chance to score.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top