Friday, March 17, 2017

Grab bag: The next step in killing the loser point

In the Friday Grab Bag:
- Your favorite team raised ticket prices. Is that bad?
- A potentially controversial take on the loser point.
- An obscure player who enjoyed what may be the shortest decade-long career in history.
- The week's three comedy stars.
- And a classic YouTube clip of Don Cherry explaining how a hockey net works while trying really hard not to murder his co-host.

>> Read the full post at Vice Sports


  1. I don't argue against people advocating the three-point system (for the exact reason you mention here: ANYTHING is better than what we have now and making "perfection" the enemy of "good enough" is leaving us with the status quo), but I do think it's the lesser of the two popular systems (with the other being just going with two points for a win and none for a loss, regardless of when that win occurs).

    Honestly, the issue with the loser point is less that some games suddenly add a magical third point into the standings (though that IS a problem), it's that they make the games boring by forcing teams to play defensive late in regulation if the score is tied, lest they leave that crucial point on the table. Here's the thing - the three point system won't fix that; in fact, it might even make it worse. If it's tied late in regulation, opening up and playing aggressive isn't just risking losing a potential point in the standings, it's risking losing that point AND giving it to your opponent. Do you think today's generation of hyper-conservative coaches are going to risk that? Of course not.

    And we don't even need theory to prove that - that's basically the situation that got us the stupid loser point in the first place. Back in the pre-Bettman era, teams tied late in overtime didn't push to try and get the second point for winning, they locked things down and ran out the clock to take the tie and guarantee themselves a point.

    So I will forever remain an advocate of just doing this the simple way: two points for a win, none for a loss, regardless of when that win occurs. I mean, who honestly cares how close the game was when it ended? No other sport that I'm familiar with awards partial credit for "close" losses, so why should the NHL?

  2. Well, I would like to know the answers to some of the questions. It is extremely interesting for my further research and handmadewritings term papers.
    Let`s start reading!